Nicholas Fox follows recent developments in Cayman law relating to freestanding Mareva injunctions
The English High Court has an inherent jurisdiction to grant injunctions against parties that are properly before it. This jurisdiction is confirmed by, but does not derive from, s 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981.
Since Mareva Cia Naviera SA v International Bulkcarriers SA (The Mareva) [1980] 1 All ER 213, [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 509, the courts have utilised this jurisdiction to grant Mareva injunctions (also known as “freezing injunctions”). They are in personam orders, restraining defendants from dissipating or otherwise dealing with their assets. They are most commonly sought by plaintiffs who are pursuing substantive claims, to prevent the defendants to those claims (substantive defendants) from rendering themselves judgment-proof by spending or hiding their assets. Following TSB v Chabra [1992] 2 All ER 245, [1992] 1 WLR 231, the courts have also granted Mareva injunctions over the assets of people that are not defendants to the substantive cause of action (non-cause-of-action-defendants (NCADs)), in situations where, for example,
-maryam-naaz-theo-corbett-and-rachel-carter-with-(front-from-left)-arya-vindlacheruvu-and-jessica-ashcroft.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=47f89300_1)
