header-logo header-logo

13 June 2025 / Mary Young
Issue: 8120 / Categories: Opinion , Freezing orders
printer mail-detail

Freezing injunctions at 50

222356
Beloved by asset recovery specialists, bemoaned by defendant lawyers: Mary Young pays tribute to the Mareva injunction

On 23 June 1975 the Court of Appeal, after hearing from Bernard Rix (as he then was), continued an order in Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulk Carriers SA (The Mareva) [1980] 1 All ER 213 preventing the defendant disposing of or removing assets (monies held in a bank account) from this jurisdiction pending the outcome of the claim against it. And thus the Mareva (freezing) injunction was born.

Designed to address the mischief of a defendant with no defence to a claim moving assets out of this jurisdiction to avoid, or at least delay, payment of a judgment, the freezing injunction is now 50 years old. It is beloved of asset recovery specialists, bemoaned by defendant lawyers and envied by lawyers practising in locations where the jurisdiction is not available. The purpose is to protect a claimant from circumstances in which a defendant deliberately makes himself judgment-proof; not to provide security for

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll