
	Where results make sense

Topic: Mareva Injunction

Related Topics

preliminary injunction

Norris LaGuardia Anti Injunction Bill

Mareva Injunction

permanent injunction

In the News (Thu 16 Feb 12)

EXECUTIVE POWER

Iran

ANALYSIS

Pakistan

Family compact

	36. MAREVA INJUNCTIONS
		36.2.2 In the early stages of its development, a Mareva injunction was used to restrain foreign defendants in actions for recovery of debts from removing assets from the jurisdiction of the Court.
		36.3.1 The intent of the Mareva injunction procedure is to preserve the assets of a defendant in legal proceedings where there is evidence of a real risk that such assets may be removed, dissipated and generally put beyond the reach of the plaintiff to frustrate action for execution when he/she eventually obtains judgment.
		36.4.1 'Mareva injunction' is an interlocutory injunction which restrains a debtor or the debtor's agents, servants or otherwise from removing assets from the jurisdiction or disposing of or dealing with those assets so as to frustrate a creditor seeking to recover from the debtor.
	law.ato.gov.au /atolaw/view.htm?DocID=RMP/RP0036 (3342 words)

	ACFI Fraud Law Archives (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-02)
		A Mareva injunction is an Order of the Court which has the effect of freezing a rogue's assets and preventing the rogue from disposing of or dealing in any manner with his assets pending the final disposition of the victim's recovery proceedings against the rogue.
		Mareva injunctions are granted with a view to preserving the status quo, that is, in order to ensure that the subject matter of the recovery litigation (typically, the stolen funds) is not dissipated before trial, thus defeating the purpose of the victim's legal proceedings against the rogue.
		The victim must give an undertaking as to damages, that is, the victim must undertake to be responsible for any damages which the rogue may incur as a result of the Mareva injunction in the event that it is subsequently determined by a Court that the Mareva injunction ought not to have been granted.
	www.acfi.ca /FraudLawMareva.htm (1181 words)

	[No title]
		Injunction was intended to protect the interests of creditors against non-resident Ds where there was a real risk of removal of assets from the court’s jurisdiction in order to defeat the P’s claim.
		Domestic Defendants Originally granted only against foreign Ds Mareva injunctions may now be issued against domestic Ds so long as P establishes substantial risk of dissipation of assets pending trial to his or her detriment - Aetna Not restricted to assets likely to be removed from a court’s jurisdiction.
		Injunction not available unless there is evidence that D is moving assets in order to defeat P’s claim.
	www.law.uvic.ca /eadjinte/318/documents/marevaoutline04.doc (1018 words)

	Equity Renewed: Part V
		Likewise, courts in matrimonial litigation have issued preliminary injunctions to prevent a spouse from dissipating assets during the pendency of a divorce proceeding.
		Newton, 11 P.D. 11, 13 (1885) (Eng.) (in matrimonial action, denying wife's application for a preliminary injunction to enjoin husband from removing his property from the country; holding that "it is not competent for a Court, merely quia timet, to restrain a respondent from dealing with his property"); Lister and Co. v.
		By 1982, the Mareva injunction was being "employed generally against foreign and domestic defendants alike and in respect of matrimonial, personal injuries and Fatal Injuries Act cases as well as in commercial matters like the shipping cases where it originated." Hetherington, supra note 353, at 2; accord Z Ltd. v.
	www.law.pitt.edu /wasserman/law4f.htm (6631 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)