Third parties who are unconnected with a dispute but who incur expense in complying with an order may specifically be covered by a cross-undertaking as to their costs and otherwise. Robert Goff J said: ‘the banks in this country have received numerous notices of [Mareva] injunctions which have been granted’. Robert Goff J’s referred to the value of and the need for the Mareva jurisdiction and to the care to be taken to ensure that such orders are only to be made for the purposes for which they are intended, namely ‘to prevent the possible abuse of a defendant removing assets in order to prevent the satisfaction of a judgment in pending proceedings’, and that they do not bear harshly upon innocent third parties.
Judges:
Robert Goff J
Citations:
[1981] CLY 2163, [1981] 1 WLR 894
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 – Smithkline Beecham Plc Glaxosmithkline UK Ltd and Another v Apotex Europe Ltd and others (No 2) CA 23-May-2006
The parties to the action had given cross undertakings to support the grant of an interim injunction. A third party subsequently applied to be joined, and now sought to take advantage of the cross undertakings to claim the losses incurred through . .
Cited – HM Customs and Excise v Barclays Bank Plc HL 21-Jun-2006
The claimant had served an asset freezing order on the bank in respect of one of its customers. The bank paid out on a cheque inadvertently as to the order. The Commissioners claimed against the bank in negligence. The bank denied any duty of care. . .
Cited – JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov SC 21-Oct-2015
The court was asked as to the interpretation and application of the standard form freezing order. In the course of long-running litigation between JSC BTA Bank and Mr Ablyazov the Bank had obtained a number of judgments against the respondent . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.192616
