header-logo header-logo

Freezing injunctions at 50

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

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Partner appointed as head of residential conveyancing for England

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

Specialist firm enhances corporate healthcare practice with partner appointment

NEWS
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School and the Frenkel Topping Group—AKA The insider—crowns Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP as his case of 2025 in his latest column for NLJ. The High Court’s decision—that non-authorised employees cannot conduct litigation, even under supervision—has sent shockwaves through the profession. Regan calls it the year’s defining moment for civil practitioners and reproduces a ‘cut-out-and-keep’ summary of key rulings from Mr Justice Sheldon
back-to-top-scroll