Third Chandris Shipping Corporation v Unimarine SA: CA 1979

The court gave guidelines for the granting of Mareva injunctions as follows: ‘(i) The plaintiff should make full and frank disclosure of all matters in his knowledge which are material for the judge to know. . (ii) The plaintiff should give particulars of his claim against the defendant, stating the ground of his claim and the amount thereof, and fairly stating the points made against it by the defendant. (iii) The plaintiff should give some grounds for believing that the defendant has assets here . . (iv) The plaintiff should give some grounds for believing that there is a risk of the assets being removed before the judgment or award is satisfied. (v) The plaintiff must, of course, give an undertaking in damages — in case he fails in his claim or the injunction turns out to be unjustified in a suitable case this should be supported by a bond or security: and the injunction only granted on it being given, or undertaken to be given’.
Mustill J noted that such applications were being made at a rate of about twenty per month.


Lord Denning MR, Mustill J


[1979] QB 645


England and Wales


CitedMareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulkcarriers SA CA 1-Feb-1975
An ex parte order was sought by the plaintiff to restrain the defendant dispersing his assets.
Held: The court granted the ad personam order requested making use of the jurisdiction given to it by the 1925 Act: ‘A mandamus or an injunction may . .

Cited by:

CitedA 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: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.219681