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.
Held: The application was dismissed. The injunction had been properly granted. An innocent third party had to do all he could to comply with such an order. The effect of such an order was to permit the bank to break the terms of any contractual obligation to the customer to honour cheques etc. The remedy has hitherto been in a contempt action.


Lord Denning MR


[1982] 1 AB 558, [1982] 2 WLR 288, [1982] 1 All ER 556


Supreme Court Act 1981 37(3)


England and Wales


AppliedRahman (Prince Abdul) bin Turki al Sudairy v AbuTaha CA 1-Jun-1980
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 . .
AppliedClipper Maritime Co Ltd v Mineralimportexport 1981
Innocent third parties, such as port authorities required by a freezing order to detain a vessel in port, are entitled to an indemnity. . .
AppliedSearose v Seatrain UK 1981
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 . .

Cited by:

CitedCommissioners of Customs and Excise v Barclays Bank Plc ComC 3-Feb-2004
The claimant had obtained orders against two companies who banked with the respondent. Asset freezing orders were served on the bank, but within a short time the customer used the bank’s Faxpay national service to transfer substantial sums outside . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Banking

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.192614