1 19821 Q.B. 558
2 (1981] Q.B. 923.
3 19821 Q.B. 558, 592
Form and nature of Mareva injunction
It is an order which restrains the defendant from moving assets from the
jurisdiction of the court, or otherwise dealing with, assets within the court's
jurisdiction in such a way as to render the execution of the ultimate judgment
futile. It is interlocutory. However. since speed is the essence of the relief, it
normally takes the form of an ex party order. It may be made to take effect until
the hearing or further order. It is normally combined with an Anton Piller or a
The order should be directed to affect a specified property, where possible, if
the value of that property will be equivalent to the value of the subject matter of
the suit. Such a course will enable the courts to determine whether a particular
disposition is in breach of the order. This may not be possible where the order is
general in scope, such as where it is made to affect all the property of the
An order of such general character may cause substantial prejudice and
hardship to the defendant and third parties.
Where the plaintiff is not in a position to identify sufficiently the assets
belonging to the defendant, the order may be made to affect all such assets of the
defendant save in so far as they are not in excess in value of the subject matter of
the plaintiffs claim: Z Ltd. v. A.-Z.1
The order may also make a provision for the ordinary living or business
expenses of the defendant: A.J. Bekhar & Co. Ltd v. Bilton. The order may direct
that an appropriate weekly or other periodic maximum amount should be set aside
for the living expenses of the defendant: P. C. W. (Underwriting Agencies) Ltd.
v. Dixon (1983] 2 All E.R. 697.
The order must be couched in clear terms, so that the defendant and third
parties affected by it may be able to ascertain with a measure of certainty what
they are required to do or not to do.
Where appropriate the order may contain a provision that
“so far as concerns as