Lord Denning, MR said: ‘So I would hold that a Mareva injunction can be granted against a man even though he is based in this country if the circumstances are such that there is a danger of his absconding, or a danger of the assets being removed out of the jurisdiction or disposed of within the jurisdiction, or otherwise dealt with so that there is a danger that the plaintiff, if he gets judgment, will not be able to get it satisfied.’
Judges:
Lord Denning MR
Citations:
[1980] CLY 2153, [1980] 1 WLR 1268, [1980] 3 All ER 409, [1980] 2 Lloyds Rep 465
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Applied – Z Ltd v A-Z and AA-LL CA 1982
The court gave directions on how banks and other third parties were to respond to Mareva injunctions. The plaintiff had obtained orders against companies with bank accounts in England. The action was settled, but the banks sougfht clarification.
Cited – A J Bekhor and Co Ltd v Bilton CA 6-Feb-1981
The plaintiff had applied for disclosure of assets under the Rules of the Supreme Court in support of a Mareva freezing order. The rules were held not to provide any such power: disclosure of assets could not be obtained as part of discovery as the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.192615
