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

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers drives further growth in its UK immigration team with new partner Sophie Barrett-Brown

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal invests in next generation of legal talent as specialist litigation practice grows

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips continues momentum in London with arrival of Catrina Smith

NEWS
Restrictions on workplace non-disclosure agreements could make settlements slower, more complex and more expensive when reforms expected in 2027 take effect
Private prosecutors face closer scrutiny under Crown Prosecution Service guidance designed to strengthen accountability and consistency when intervention is requested
Foreign states cannot necessarily claim immunity for cyber operations launched abroad against computers in Britain, following a divided Supreme Court ruling
Defendants who make unsupported complaints about their lawyers risk losing legal aid while confiscation proceedings continue without representation
Lawyers advising Russian clients face different sanctions restrictions across the UK, EU and US, despite their shared objective of increasing pressure on Russia
back-to-top-scroll