mareva injunction Flashcards
Mahoney v Horgan
very powerful remedy which if improperly invoked will bring about an injustice, something that it was designed to prevent
Lister v Stubbs
you cannot get an injunction to restrain a man who is alleged to be a debtor from parting with his property
Nippon Yussen Kaisha v Karageorgis
P, ship owners, let a number of ships to D who defaulted on payments, P sought injunction to freeze assets D had in London pending trial, first MI granted
Mareva Compania Naveria v International Bulk Carriers
only where it is established there is an imminent danger of D dissipating his assets, the court may grant an injunction to restrain him from doing so
Rasu Maritima
noted MI was a major judicial innovation & was developed by the courts because it is not right to let injustice flourish while the rule-making authorities debated the correct procedure
Third Chandris Shipping Corporation
1) P should make a full & frank disclosure of all matter
2) P should give particulars of his claim and fairly state the points made against him by D
3) P should give grounds for believing D has assets
4) P should give grounds for believing there is a risk of assets being removed
5) P must make an undertaking as to damages
Bambrick v Colbey
materiality of facts is to be construed in a reasonable & not excessive manner, court retains discretion in deciding to discharge order where all material facts have not been disclosed
Countyglen v Carway
not necessary for P to establish probability of success at trial
Fleming v Ranks
court emphasised that an intended dissipation of assets must be shown for the purpose of preventing O recovering damages and not simply for the purpose of carrying on business or discharging debts
O’Mahony v Horgan (nefarious intention)
payment of a sum of money owed on an insurance policy was deemed not to be a dissipation of assets but rather a carrying on of business and the discharge of a lawful debt
Bennet Enterprises v Lipton
direct evidence of intention would be rare, it was reasonable to consider intention in light of circs of the case
Bambick v Cobley (nefarious intention)
if D intended to remove his assets outside of the jurisdiction, court could draw an inference that he intended to evade his obligations to P
