Introduction
The laws of England and Ireland did not enable the freezing of assets of a defendant without lawful judgement prior to 1975. Thus this involved each case being brought before the courts and tried before such an order of the court was imposed. As a result the absence of such a remedy that could put an almost instantaneous hold on any transferable asset was aiding the defendant to avoid liability. Lord Denning stated that the Mareva injunction was “the greatest piece of judicial law in my time”. Lord Donaldson described it as “one of the law’s two ‘nuclear’ weapons. A ‘Mareva’ injunction is a distinct type of interlocutory relief intended to prevent the defendant from dispersing his or her chattels or detaching them from the …show more content…
However, prior to this, limitations were presented in the cases of Bank Mellat v Nikpour and Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulkcarriers SA. They were as follows, (a) the Mareva would only be granted against foreign defendants and (b) the Mareva would only be granted if the plaintiff could show he had a ‘very strong case’ against the defendant. Although primarily the Mareva injunction was designed for use against individuals who resided outside the jurisdiction, the limitations steadily started to diminish. An issue raised, by Lord Hailsham LC, was that domestic residents also had the opportunity to dissipate their chattels to foreign accounts or relatives who resided overseas. McGarry VC supported the view of Lord Hailsham in applying Mareva injunctions to English citizens and as a result the introduction of legislation in England occurred in 1981.
Development in …show more content…
McWilliam J in Fleming v Ranks noted, on the facts, he could not grant an injunction. It was outlined that Mareva injunctions could not solely be confined to defendants who would reside outside the jurisdiction. McWilliams J reinforced this opinion a year later when he stated ‘he ought to continue the injunction’ when the defendants were reluctant to disclose their assets and dispositions. Originally the foundation for granting the Mareva injunction was a case had to be almost virtually unanswerable. Nonetheless the measures had been weakened with the requirement of the plaintiff to present ‘a good arguable case’. Lynch J labelled the requirements as a ‘substantial question to be tried’. In short the safeguarding of individuals businesses against the unnecessary intervention of the
The laws of England and Ireland did not enable the freezing of assets of a defendant without lawful judgement prior to 1975. Thus this involved each case being brought before the courts and tried before such an order of the court was imposed. As a result the absence of such a remedy that could put an almost instantaneous hold on any transferable asset was aiding the defendant to avoid liability. Lord Denning stated that the Mareva injunction was “the greatest piece of judicial law in my time”. Lord Donaldson described it as “one of the law’s two ‘nuclear’ weapons. A ‘Mareva’ injunction is a distinct type of interlocutory relief intended to prevent the defendant from dispersing his or her chattels or detaching them from the …show more content…
However, prior to this, limitations were presented in the cases of Bank Mellat v Nikpour and Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulkcarriers SA. They were as follows, (a) the Mareva would only be granted against foreign defendants and (b) the Mareva would only be granted if the plaintiff could show he had a ‘very strong case’ against the defendant. Although primarily the Mareva injunction was designed for use against individuals who resided outside the jurisdiction, the limitations steadily started to diminish. An issue raised, by Lord Hailsham LC, was that domestic residents also had the opportunity to dissipate their chattels to foreign accounts or relatives who resided overseas. McGarry VC supported the view of Lord Hailsham in applying Mareva injunctions to English citizens and as a result the introduction of legislation in England occurred in 1981.
Development in …show more content…
McWilliam J in Fleming v Ranks noted, on the facts, he could not grant an injunction. It was outlined that Mareva injunctions could not solely be confined to defendants who would reside outside the jurisdiction. McWilliams J reinforced this opinion a year later when he stated ‘he ought to continue the injunction’ when the defendants were reluctant to disclose their assets and dispositions. Originally the foundation for granting the Mareva injunction was a case had to be almost virtually unanswerable. Nonetheless the measures had been weakened with the requirement of the plaintiff to present ‘a good arguable case’. Lynch J labelled the requirements as a ‘substantial question to be tried’. In short the safeguarding of individuals businesses against the unnecessary intervention of the