freezing injunction

(redirected from Mareva injunction)
Also found in: Dictionary, Wikipedia.

freezing injunction

a court order which restrains someone from removing or dealing with their assets. This can be by way of an interim order and is referred to as a ‘freezing injunction’. These were formerly known as Mareva injunctions a form of injunction, named after the case in which it was first granted, under which the court could freeze the assets of a resident or non-resident debtor where the debtor has gone abroad but still has assets in England. A provision could be inserted to protect third parties abroad by way of preventing the order having effect until the injunction is approved by the foreign court, such a provision being known as a Babanaft proviso after the case in which it was first allowed. The procedure is now set out in rules of court. To obtain a ‘freezing injunction’ the creditor must present a good arguable case, showing that there is a real risk of dissipation and that the order is appropriate on the balance of convenience between the parties. The order imposes limitations on what a debtor can do with their assets but provisos maybe permitted to allow the addressee to continue to trade or maintain a lifestyle. The creditor must identify a cause of action and demonstrate that there is a real risk that the debtor is or may be in the process of dealing with their assets.
Mentioned in ?
References in periodicals archive ?
The Mareva injunction, the favored weapon of claimants before the
102) This is because the Mareva injunction does not seize
25) Justice Scalia drafted the opinion of the Court and stated that Congress, not the Supreme Court, was in a better position to design an appropriate remedy similar to the Mareva injunction.
On the other hand, the genesis of the Mareva injunction in England lies in caselaw.
29) Although moving parties also have the discretion to obtain a Mareva injunction at any point in legal proceedings, its effect is obviously strongest when obtained ex parte.
The Mareva injunction (sometimes also referred to as a "freezing order") takes its name from one of the first cases in which this injunctive remedy was granted: Mareva Campania Naviera SA v International Bulk Carriers SA, in which Lord Denning stated that: "[i]f it appears that the debt is due and owing, and there is a danger that the debtor may dispose of his assets so as to defeat it before judgment, the court has jurisdiction in a proper case to grant an interlocutory judgment so as to prevent him disposing of those assets".
In its leading decision on the subject, Aetna Financial Services Ltd v Feigelman, (50) the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed the existence and availability of the Mareva injunction in Canada.
Price, that the Mareva injunction is an extraordinary remedy that should only be granted in appropriate cases under the following four guidelines applicable to the plaintiff:
OTC-BB:SNMM) ("Starnet"), announced today that on Friday, October 15, 1999 the Supreme Court of British Columbia set aside the ex parte order and Mareva injunction granted Las Vegas Casino Inc.
With a career that has already spanned over 21 years, he has experience in Anton Piller Orders (evidence preservation), Norwich Orders (third party disclosure of records), and Mareva Injunctions (freezing assets); and has acted as trial counsel in numerous commercial litigation and corporate fraud claims.
Norwich orders are often granted in conjunction with other similar litigation-affiliated equitable remedies: Mareva injunctions (to identify and locate assets), Anton Pillar orders (to identify and locate evidence for preservation) and Bankers' Trust orders (to trace and preserve assets in which the wronged party has a proprietary interest).