UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A second look at the Mareva injunction Jessiman, Jon L. 1983

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1983_A6_4 J47.pdf [ 6.35MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0077686.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0077686-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0077686-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0077686-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0077686-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0077686-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0077686-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0077686-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0077686.ris

Full Text

A SECOND LOOK AT THE MAREVA INJUNCTION by JOHN LEWIS JON J E S S I M A N B.A., The U n i v e r s i t y L L . B . , The U n i v e r s i t y  of B r i t i s h of B r i t i s h  C o l u m b i a , 1959 C o l u m b i a , 1962  A T H E S I S SUBMITTED I N P A R T I A L F U L F I L M E N T OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF LAWS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (FACULTY OF  We a c c e p t t h i s  LAW)  t h e s i s as conforming  to the required  standard  THE U N I V E R S I T Y OF B R I T I S H COLUMBIA S e p t e m b e r 1983 ©  J o h n L e w i s J o n J e s s i m a n 1983  In p r e s e n t i n g  t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of  requirements f o r an advanced degree at the  the  University  o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make it  f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference  and  study.  I further  agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may department or by h i s or her  be granted by  the head of  representatives.  my  It i s  understood t h a t copying or p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain  s h a l l not be allowed without my  permission.  Department o f  Faculty of law  The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date  DE-6  (3/81)  September  , 1983  written  AN ABSTRACT  The  form  of  interlocutory injunction  commonly c a l l e d "Mareva" i s a r e c e n t j u d i c i a l i n v e n t i o n .  It  was  to  initially  restrain  a  designed  debtor,  by  the U n i t e d  Kingdom  p r i o r t o judgment,  from  courts  removing  a s s e t s beyond the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the c o u r t so as t o a  creditor  from  P r i o r t o 1975, to  the  subsequently  executing  t h i s p a r t i c u l a r remedy was  common  law  and  i n j u n c t i o n s were  upon  a  his  prevent judgment.  p r a c t i c a l l y unknown not  granted  for  such p u r p o s e s .  I n the i n t e r v e n i n g e i g h t y e a r s , b o t h p r a c t i c e and been  the p r o c e d u r e f o r o b t a i n i n g the i n j u n c t i o n  expanded  spread  and  refined.  t o Canada and  itimacy reported  was  mooted f o r s e v e r a l y e a r s  Its legthe  first  and  burden of t h i s t h e s i s i s t o examine  the e x t e n s i o n s  t i o n b o t h i n Canada and  Canadian  following  has  case.  p r i n c i p l e and  invention  have  use of the i n j u n c t i o n  t o o t h e r Commonwealth n a t i o n s .  The the  The  the  of  its  t o r e f l e c t on i t s a p p r o p r i a t e use w i t h i n  the  context.  abroad,  authorized for i t s applicat o probe the s o u r c e s  T h i s i s done,  as i t were,  as a  second  v i e w , w i t h the d i s p a s s i o n t h a t d i s t a n c e i n time s a f e l y a l l o w s and w i t h r e g a r d t o the l e a r n i n g s t h a t e x t e n s i v e e x p e r i e n c e the c o u r t s might a f f o r d .  ii  in  The the  law  prior  utilised  by  to  the E n g l i s h c o u r t i n i t s adoption  from  questions  in  a step.  An  continues  the a u t h e n t i c i t y extensive review  remedies a v a i l a b l e  i n some o t h e r  concludes  with  an  analysis  importing  the  English practice  course  with the  and  Mareva,  begins with  processes such  examination  which  ostensibly  of  the  of is  made  to  the  Canadian  of  reasoning civil  the Court's  jurisdictions  the dangers  a review  of  and  law logic  similar  the  thesis  inherent in  simply  Canadian  c o u r t s have  scene,  initially  followed.  The  law  iii  i s s t a t e d as  of August  a  1,  1983.  TABLE OF CONTENTS  I.  Introduction Notes 1 t o 17  II.  Pre-Trial A. B. C.  III.  IV.  VI.  The T r a d i t i o n a l Rule The E x c e p t i o n s Pre-Judgment A l t e r n a t i v e s Notes 18 t o 53  8 11 15 18  of the Concept  F o r m u l a t i o n of the Mareva I t s Refinement Notes 54 t o 88  Foreign A. B. C. D.  V.  Attachment  Development A. B.  1 6  21 26 32  Attachment  E a r l y England In S c o t l a n d • Elsewhere i n Europe In America Notes 89 to 137  35 39 43 46 50  Jurisdictioa A. B. C. D.  Statutory Basis E f f e c t o f Other Remedies Other J u r i s d i c t i o n s Cause of A c t i o n Notes 138 t o 178  The  Guidelines  A. B. C.  American Cyanamid T e s t The Requirements Canadian P o s i t i o n Summarised Notes 179 t o 218  iv  53 58 60 61 64  67 70 81 83  TABLE OF CONTENTS  VII.  V a r i a t i o n , E x t e n s i o n and D i s s o l u t i o n A. B. C.  VIII.  85 88 92 98  Relief  Discovery Anton P i l l e r Orders D e f a u l t Judgment N o t e s 261 t o 284  The C a n a d i a n A. B. C. D.  X.  Vacating the Order Providing Security V a r y i n g Terms o f t h e O r d e r N o t e s 219 t o 260  Corollary A. B. C.  IX.  (continued)  101 103 106 109  Context  The F e d e r a l S t a t e The C h a r t e r o f R i g h t s M u l t i p l e Remedies Uniformity N o t e s 285 t o 302  111 115 117 119 121  Post-Scriptum N o t e s 303 t o 307  123 126  BIBLIOGRAPHY  127  APPENDIX I  130  APPENDIX I I  134  APPENDIX I I I  137  APPENDIX I V  138  BIOGRAPHICAL FORM  140  v  A SECOND. LOOK AT THE MAREVA  INJUNCTION  CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION  Resolution between  t h e common  have been a c h i e v e d 1 in  1615  historic by  law c o u r t s  seen  the  extent  could  be c o n v e n i e n t l y which  the nature  of Oxford's  Case  the  to a legal  n o t have  shield sword  of  two  courts foreequity  i n the short  followed.  A classic of  well  amalgamation o f t h e  the t r a d i t i o n a l  converted  England  might  f o r fusion of  o f 1873 a n d 1875 c o u l d  t o which  in  of equity  the Earl  responsible  streams o f o u r law w i t h Acts  hostility  and those  by James I a f t e r  b u t even those  the Judicature  century  of  of equity  eighteenth  century  explanation  was t h a t :  " E q u i t y i s no p a r t o f t h e l a w , b u t a m o r a l v i r t u e , which q u a l i f i e s , moderates and r e forms t h e r i g o u r , h a r d n e s s and edge o f t h e law, a n d i t i s a u n i v e r s a l t r u t h ; i t d o e s a l s o a s s i s t t h e l a w where i t i s d e f e c t i v e and weak i n t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n ( w h i c h i s t h e l i f e o f t h e law) and d e f e n d s t h e law from c r a f t y e v a s i o n s , d e l u s i o n s a n d new s u b t i l t i e s ( s i c ) , i n v e n t e d and c o n t r i v e d t o evade and d e l u d e t h e common l a w , w h e r e b y s u c h a s h a v e u n d o u b t e d r i g h t a r e made r e m e d i l e s s : and t h i s i s t h e o f f i c e o f e q u i t y , t o s u p p o r t a n d p r o t e c t t h e common l a w f r o m s h i f t s and c r a f t y c o n t r i v a n c e s a g a i n s t t h e j u s t i c e o f t h e law."2  1  The e x a m p l e s where e q u i t y it as  i s well-known a result  h i s t o r y o f E n g l i s h law i s r i f e  has i n t e r v e n e d  t h a t much o f t h e s t a t u t e  o f an e v o l v i n g  While developments  system  such as t r u s t s and u s e s ,  hand  of  procedural  such as d i s c o v e r y  to  force  suits,  a  party  doing  a specific  etary  compensation  party  and a r o s e  Chancellor of  common  injury  such  as s p e c i f i c  that  is  examples principles  third  performance and t h e  the focus  of this  i n j u n c t i o n i s an o r d e r t o do o r t o  I t i s granted  i n cases  a f f o r d s an i n a d e q u a t e  i n courts  courts  a  courts,  en-  t o proceedings  act.  law  are popular  i t i s toward  of equity judges  t o grant  remedy  paper  of the  court  refrain  from  i n which  mon-  t o an i n j u r e d  a s an i n s t r u m e n t  t o overcome t h e  relief  is  appropriate  of  the  inability to the  or injustice.  Jurisdiction is  on t h e s e c o n d  t h e e v o l u t i o n o f new.remedies t o  and h i s Chancery law  and a u g m e n t a t i o n  to  of  particularly, 3 directed.  An directing  principles.  area  common l a w r i g h t s ,  principally  legal  developed  by a p p l i c a t i o n o f e q u i t a b l e  fascination,  injunction  of s t r i c t  and e v i d e n c e - t a k i n g ,  a l l legal  equity's  l a w was  d e f i c i e n c i e s o f t h e common  the b e n e f i t s gained  now  injustice;  on t h e one hand o f new r i g h t s unknown  law,  of  t o c o r r e c t an  with  now i n v a r i a b l y s t a t u t o r y b u t , discretionary  and  t o grant being  i s exercised  2  injunctive  relief  equitable  in  nature,  usually only  in  a i d of  legal  rights.  injunctions  While  c o u r t s have i d e n t i f i e d  and have e n u n c i a t e d  able  to their  time  as  granting,  s e v e r a l types of  rules or guidelines  applic-  t h e r u l e s have changed from  judges  both  clarified  and a d a p t e d  needs  and  circumstances.  the  time  remedy  to to  4  changing  The  guidelines  vary 5  plainly the in  between i n t e r l o c u t o r y  and p e r p e t u a l i n j u n c t i o n s ,  phenomenon known a s t h e M a r e v a i n j u n c t i o n the former  category.  operating only u n t i l  is  h e l d o r a f u r t h e r o r d e r i s made, 6 s t a t u s quo a n t e b e l l u m . Prior ordinary  free'ze  a  case  a g a i n s t him. and  they  the f i n a l  trial  t o 1975,  i t was n o t p o s s i b l e  assets before  specifically  fraudulent  judgment  authorized  such  transfers, orders  or  in  injunction was  where where  to  obtained  There were few e x c e p t i o n s t o t h i s g e n e r a l  involved  of  thereby maintaining the  t o o b t a i n an i n t e r l o c u t o r y  defendant's  clearly  S u c h o r d e r s a r e made i n a d v a n c e  any f o r m a l d i s p o s i t i o n ,  the  falls  and  rule  statutes particular  7 a s s e t s were t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r  In of  Appeal,  Rolls, Mareva actually  led  devised  injunction the  that year,  primarily a  new  granted  to prevent  assets  in  against  him.  litigation.  t h e U n i t e d Kingdom  by L o r d D e n n i n g ,  remedy w h i c h  after  second  of the  came t o be  one o f t h e v e r y  o n e g r a n t e d by t h a t  a f o r e i g n defendant  t h e U n i t e d Kingdom  3  Master  from  Court  of  known  the as  a 8  earliest 9  cases,  Court.  It  was  d i s p o s i n g of  his  so as t o d e f e a t  any  recovery  Lord biographical  D e n n i n g , i n one o f h i s r e c e n t  reminiscences,  has c a l l e d  auto-  the Mareva i n j u n c t i o n 1 0  the  greatest piece  of j u d i c i a l  law reform  T h e r e i s no d o u b t t h a t i n e i g h t y e a r s potent will  and w e l l - u s e d restrain  sword.  i n modern  i t has d e v e l o p e d i n t o  Shortly put,  this  of  t h e c o u r t o r d i s p o s i n g o f them  jurisdiction  or  otherwise  any  dealing with  judgment which the p l a i n t i f f  from  the  within  the  them s o a s t o may  a  injunction  a defendant from removing h i s a s s e t s  jurisdiction  trate  times.  frus-  obtain  against  I n e s s e n c e , i t e n a b l e s a c r e d i t o r t o impound  property  11 him.  of h i s debtor  at the outset,  against  debtor,  the  equivalent the  long before  he o b t a i n s  judgment  and t h e n t o have t h e p r o p e r t y  or i t s  r e t a i n e d as s e c u r i t y f o r payment  e v e n t he a f t e r w a r d s  gets  of the  debt  in  judgment.  In those  eight years  since  1975,  extensions  of that p r i n c i p l e  placed  on  the a v a i l a b i l i t y  United  K i n g d o m and. s e v e r a l Commonwealth c o u n t r i e s h a v e a d o p -  ted  certain  a n d some l i m i t a t i o n s  great  of t h i s  remedy.  r u l e s w h i c h h a v e g r o w n up  have  Courts  around  been  in  the  the  injunc-  12 tions  and,  sparingly, provinces.  13  s i n c e 1 9 7 9 , t h e remedy by  superior The  has j u r i s d i c t i o n  tion  of  most  of  the  to grant  have c o n s i d e r e d  albeit Canadian  Federal  Four tribunals  courts  has been g r a n t e d ,  C o u r t o f Canada has r u l e d i t 14 such r e l i e f . respected  the merits  Canadian  of t h i s  4  appellate  judicial  and have e n d o r s e d i t s a p p l i c a t i o n w i t h i n o u r  too  inven15 shores.  It  i s t r u e t h a t the B r i t i s h Columbia  Court of Appqal  yet  had f u l l y argued b e f o r e i t the m e r i t s of t h i s  but  w h i l e one case awaits on the h e a r i n g l i s t ,  o b i t e r d i c t a i n another has s p e c i f i c a l l y 16 tion  i n t h i s Province.  examination many  unreported,  have  granted ision  the Court i n  supported i t s  i n excess of f i f t y  been g r a n t e d by t r i a l  Supreme and County C o u r t s i n B r i t i s h The  procedure  I t i s e s t i m a t e d from t h i s  t h a t something  Supreme  has not  adop-  writer's  such  orders,  judges i n the  Columbia.  Court of  l e a v e t o appeal a 1982 Manitoba  Canada  recently  Court of Appeal  dec-  and argument may be expected i n Ottawa on the case 17  that Court's f i r s t  examination o f Mareva.  I t i s clear  in that  the procedure has become an e s t a b l i s h e d and e f f e c t i v e t o o l t o civil  litigants  i n our j u r i s d i c t i o n . It  purpose which  in its  unique  remedial  form;  the  the terms under  i t may be g r a n t e d and the c i r c u m s t a n c e s p e r m i t t i n g i t s or  l i m i t a t i o n bear c l o s e examination  an e x t r a o r d i n a r y measure.  for i t is  That much has been w r i t t e n  the l e a r n e d j o u r n a l s i n a v e r y s h o r t time i s e v i d e n c e novelty;  defining  that  both t r i a l  and appeal c o u r t s  the boundaries o f i t s e f f e c t s  the r i s k s s t i l l  is  are  of  still  c o r r o b o r a t i o n of  present i n i t s a p p l i c a t i o n .  We such  a  f o r which i t came t o be promulgated,  extension truly  is  an examination.  will It will  some y e a r s y e t t o come. 5  i n the pages  following  not be f i n a l l y  concluded  begin for  FOOTNOTES  CHAPTER I 1.  ( 1 6 1 5 ) 1 R e p . Ch. 1; 1 W. & T.L.C. 6 1 5 .  2.  S i r Nathan W r i g h t i n L o r d D u d l e y a n d Ward D u d l e y ( 1 7 0 5 ) P r e c . C h . 241 a n d a t p . 2 4 4 .  3.  For insight i n t o t h e h i s t o r i c a l development of the injunction, see Baker, P.V. a n d L a n g a n , P.S. S n e l l ' s Principles of Equity, 28th e d i t i o n . London: Sweet & Maxwell L t d . , 1 9 8 2 , p a r t i c u l a r l y a t p. 9 a n d p. 624. A f t e r a l o n g p e r i o d o f h o p e l e s s r i v a l r y , t h e Common Law Procedure A c t , 1854, gave t h e common l a w c o u r t s a l i m i t e d power o f g r a n t i n g i n j u n c t i o n s and t h e C h a n c e r y Amendment A c t , 1858, (commonly c a l l e d L o r d C a i r n ' s Act) finally gave t h e Court o f Chancery power t o award damages e i t h e r i n s t e a d o f , or i naddition to, an i n junction o r s p e c i f i c performance. The r o o t of the p r o b l e m h o w e v e r , was n o t d e a l t w i t h u n t i l t h e f u s i o n i n 1875.  4.  W h i l e most c u r r e n t t e x t b o o k s w i l l c o n v e n i e n t l y l i s t t h e general rules o r requirements applicable t o i n j u n c t i v e relief, an e x c e l l e n t summary c a n b e f o u n d i n S n e l l , s u p r a , f n 3, b e g i n n i n g a t p . 6 2 7 .  5.  See i n f r a , Chapter VI, for theprinciples applicable in cases of interlocutory injunctions following the 1975 case o f A m e r i c a n Cyanamid Co. v . E t h i c o n L t d . [ 1 9 7 5 ] A.C. 3 9 6 . A n e x c e l l e n t a r t i c l e o n t h e t o p i c i s by G r a y , C. " I n t e r l o c u t o r y I n j u n c t i o n s S i n c e C y a n a m i d " ( 1 9 8 0 ) 40 C a m b r i d g e Law J o u r n a l 3 0 7 .  6.  Bean, D a v i d .  7.  See Chapter I I , ceptions .  8.  Mareva Compania Naviera S.A. v. International Bulkcarriers S.A. (THE M A R E V A ) [ 1 9 7 5 ] 2 L l o y d s R e p . 509, [ 1 9 8 0 ] 1 A l l E.R. 2 1 3 .  9.  The f i r s t r e p o r t e d c a s e was N i p p o n Y u s e n Kaisha v. K a r a g e o r g i s [ 1 9 7 5 ] 1 W.L.R. 1093, 2 L l o y d s . R e p . 1 3 7 , 3 A l l E.R. 2 8 2 .  Injunctions. infra,  L o n d o n : Oyez P r e s s , for a discussion  v.  Lady  1 979.  of these ex-  \I0. \  D e n n i n g , L o r d A l f r e d Thompson. The Due P r o c e s s o f Law. L o n d o n : B u t t e r w o r t h s , 1980. A t p. 134.  11. ; \ i  S t o c k w o o d , D a v i d T. " M a r e v a I n j u n c t i o n s " ( 1 9 8 0 ) J o u r n a l o f B u s i n e s s Law 415. A l s o s e e e x c e l l e n t a r t i c l e by M c A l l i s t e r , D e b r a M. " M a r e v a I n j u n c t i o n s " ( 1 9 8 2 ) 28 6  C.P.C. 1, now p r i n t e d i n b o o k f o r m u n d e r t h e same t i t l e at T o r o n t o : C a r s w e l l , 1983, d e s c r i b i n g d e t a i l of the Mareva background. 12.  A u s t r a l i a , New Z e a l a n d , S o u t h A f r i c a and C a n a d a , i n t e r alia. See Appendix I f o r a comprehensive c o m p i l a t i o n of d e c i s i o n s o f t h e U n i t e d K i n g d o m c o u r t s s i n c e 1975.  13.  I n c l u d i n g t h e N o r t h w e s t T e r r i t o r i e s Supreme C o u r t w h i c h r e p o r t e d one o f t h e v e r y f i r s t h e a r d i n t h i s c o u n t r y i n April, 1980. B.P. E x p l o r a t i o n Company ( L i b y a ) L i m i t e d v. H u n t [ 1 9 8 0 ] 14 D.L.R. ( 3 d ) 35, 16 C.P.C. 168 [ 1 9 8 1 ] 1 W.W.R. 2 0 9 . See A p p e n d i x I I f o r a c o m p r e h e n s i v e compilation of r e p o r t e d Canadian d e c i s i o n s concerning the g r a n t i n g of Mareva i n j u n c t i o n s .  14.  Elseguro Inc. v . Ssangyong S h i p p i n g C o . L t d . (THE BOOYONG) [ 1 9 8 1 ] 117 D.L.R. ( 3 d ) 105, ( 1 9 8 0 ) 19 C.P.C. 1, 2 F.C. 326. Although not granted i n t h i s case, C o l lier J . a f t e r r e v i e w i n g the a u t h o r i t i e s c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e d t h e remedy was a v a i l a b l e i n t h e F e d e r a l C o u r t and orders h a v e b e e n made i n o t h e r a p p l i c a t i o n s s i n c e t h i s c a s e i n 1980. See f o r e x a m p l e , Alhamlima E n t e r p r i s e s v. The S h i p ATRA and L o r a c T r a n s p o r t L t d . ( 1 9 8 0 ) (Unreported, T-4603-80) M i d l a n d N a v i g a t i o n A/S v . T h e Owners and O t h e r s I n t e r e s t e d i n t h e F r e i g h t a n d S u b Freights o f t h e Vessel MOUNT R A I N I E R and Equity Maritime E n t e r p r i s e s (1981) (Unreported, T-1736-81). His L o r d s h i p e a r l i e r g r a n t e d such an o r d e r i n the case of S e a b l u e S h i p p i n g ^ F i n a n c i n g Co. S.A. v . S s a n g y o n g S h i p p i n g Corp. L t d . (1980) ( U n r e p o r t e d , T-3231-80).  15.  The A p p e a l Courts of British Columbia, O n t a r i o a n d New B r u n s w i c k . See C h a p t e r V, d i s c u s s i o n of the cases.  16.  Dean v . F o r d C r e d i t C a n a d a L t d . e t a l ( 1 9 8 2 ) 38 B.C.L. R. 145 i s a w a i t i n g a p p e a l . The C o u r t o f Appeal judgment i s t h a t o f Nemetz C.J.B.C., together with Carrothers and C r a i g , JJ.A. concurring, i n Sekisui House K a b u s h i k i K a i s h a v. Ikuo Nagashima e t a l (1983) 42 B.C.L.R. 1.  17.  Leave t o a p p e a l t o t h e Supreme C o u r t o f C a n a d a was g r a n t e d J a n u a r y 28, 1983 i n t h e M a n i t o b a c a s e , F e i g e l man e t a l v . A e t n a F i n a n c i a l S e r v i c e s L t d . e t a l [ 1 9 8 3 ] 143 D.L.R. ( 3 d ) 715, 2 W.W.R. 9 7 .  7  Manitoba, infra, for  CHAPTER I I  A.  -  P R E - T R I A L ATTACHMENT  THE TRADITIONAL RULE  Before ciated court  the  Mareva d o c t r i n e  enun-  i n 1 9 7 5 , i t was a n e s t a b l i s h e d p r i n c i p l e o f l a w t h a t a would not i n t e r f e r e a t t h e request of t h e c r e d i t o r  a d e b t o r ' s r i g h t t o manage h i s a f f a i r s , prior  was  to a trial  injunction plaintiff  would  on t h e m e r i t s not  to obtain  including h i s assets,  of the creditor's claim.  normally  be  with  granted  to  An  assist  what w o u l d i n e f f e c t be e x e c u t i o n  a  before  judgment.  The the Court  proposition  appears  line  o f common l a w a u t h o r i t i e s f o r  to begin with  the  United  Kingdom  A p p e a l i n 1870 i n M i l l s v.. N o r t h e r n Railway of 18 Buenos A y r e s t h r o u g h N a t i o n a l P r o v i n c i a l Bank o f E n g l a n d v . 19 20 Thomas t o L i s t e r & Co. v . S t u b b s i n 1890. The latter case  of  i s often  referred to i n this  country  by  f o l l o w i n g passage from t h e judgment o f C o t t o n ,  quoting  L. J . :  " I know o f no c a s e w h e r e , b e c a u s e i t was h i g h l y p r o b a b l e t h a t i f t h e a c t i o n were brought t o a hearing the p l a i n t i f f could e s t a b l i s h t h a t a d e b t was d u e t o h i m f r o m the d e f e n d a n t , t h e d e f e n d a n t has been ordered t o g i v e s e c u r i t y u n t i l t h a t has been e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e judgment o r d e c r e e . " 2 1  8  the  In former his  the  t o purchase  application  d i s c o v e r e d the scheme,  on  behalf  a for  the ground  and  he sought r e c o v e r y of His  interlocutory  f o r an i n j u n c t i o n p r e v e n t i n g the defendant  d e a l i n g w i t h or d i s p o s i n g o f h i s immoral missed  sued  supplies  f o r purchases he had made on the p l a i n t i f f ' s  amount of the k i c k b a c k s and damages.  first  plaintiff  The employee r e c e i v e d k i c k b a c k s from the sup-  when the l a t t e r the  case,  employee whose t a s k i t was  employer.  plier  that  g a i n s was  t h a t the law r e q u i r e d a  from  twice d i s -  plaintiff  to  prove h i s c l a i m and t o secure judgment.  At early authorities, court  i n 1889  about  the  same time and  based  Mr. J u s t i c e Drake of the B r i t i s h  i n Baxter v.  Jacobs,  on  Columbia  Moss e t a l put i t  this  way:  "In cases where t h e r e has been no o r d e r made f o r the payment of money by the Court, the Court cannot r e s t r a i n a man from removing, h i s p r o p e r t y out of the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the Court."22  In interim had  breached  a contract to s e l l  for  defendant  determined  plaintiff  from  a l l his fur  a fixed price stated i n  p a r t y and the p l a i n t i f f him  the  sought  i n j u n c t i o n a g a i n s t the defendants a f t e r one of  plaintiff  ing  Baxter,  instead  to s e l l  the  seals  to  contract.  his furs  to  an them the The  another  attempted t o secure an o r d e r p r e v e n t -  p a r t i n g w i t h the f u r s , o r removing  9  from  the  jurisdiction was  the  intitially  basis  of 23  monies r e c e i v e d g r a n t e d ex  the  c l e a r law  from t h e i r s a l e .  parte  but  when t h e  was  An  dissolved  merits  of  the  order on  order  the were  argued.  A l t h o u g h i n many j u r i s d i c t i o n s s t a t u t o r y procedures  have  been adopted t o p r o v i d e  remedies f o r unsecured c r e d i t o r s , law  offered  judgment "is  little  form.  unique  creditor  "English  in  its  before  "discoverer"  assistance  law,"  as  the  As  Mareva  we  the  c l a i m was  Dunlop'has  firm r e f u s a l to 24  pre-judgment  f  recently  b e f o r e the  judgment."  of  until  some  assist shall  injunction  common  reduced  pointed the  to out  unsecured  later  see,  examined  the  several  principles of f o r e i g n attachment i n other' j u r i s d i c t i o n s to locate p r i n c i p l e s to be applied in the new equitable 25 doctrine.  In procedures  this  have been e n a c t e d  creditor,  prior  debtor  another person but  claims  by  country statutory  to  i n most p r o v i n c e s  judgment, the  f o r l i q u i d a t e d sums and  or p e r s o n a l , Columbia, statute, guidelines  the and  already  Family  affect  Act  a v a i l a b l e i n such s i t u a t i o n s .  a  to  a  available  in  assets,  hands of  Relations  enable  a d e b t owed  remedy i s o n l y  does not  to  the debtor. 26 Court Order Enforcement Act, the 27  the  i n the  to attach  garnishment  contain  In  real British  principal the  few  The in  latter,  most o f t h e p r o v i n c e s  Mareva  in  pending  effect,  legislation  o f Canada and a l t h o u g h  akin to the  i s restricted to  litigation  primarily  i n common w i t h  between husband and w i f e  t o a c t as s e c u r i t y  injunctive only  relief  the  easily  related to  assets.  subject matter of l i t i g a t i o n . and c o u r t s  construed  have i n t h e past  situations  The against  restraining  where a c r e d i t o r  general  They a r e neither  t o allow for t h e i r  in  courts  can e s t a b l i s h  principle,  have r e l a x e d  broad  readily  nor  application.  the prohibition of  his  assets  a p r i m a f a c i e c a s e o f f r a u d on  W i d e l y a c c e p t e d as an e x c e p t i o n i t s basis  lies  when  a d e b t o r company a t t e m p t e d t o d i s p o s e market v a l u e  11  to  i n the equitable  o f f r a u s e t j u s nunquam c o h a b i t a n t .  their fair  not  Fraud  trine  than  been v a r i e d  a debtor from d i s p o s i n g  part of the debtor.  the  had h i t h e r t o  barring  i n cases o f f r a u d and f o r p r e s e r v a t i o n  1.  less  designed  t r a d i t i o n a l common l a w r u l e  to a creditor  two i n s t a n c e s :  exceptions  the  and i s  THE EXCEPTIONS  The  of  involving  f o r subsequent orders  maintenance and d i s t r i b u t i o n o f f a m i l y  B.  situations  doc-  So f o r e x a m p l e , of i t s  t o another  goods  company  at  con-  trolled  by t h e same p r i n c i p a l ,  the  from d e a l i n g w i t h t h o s e goods p e n d i n g t h e outcome 28 creditor's action. O r when a former employee,  of  restrained  debtor the  convicted of theft for wrongful entitled  from h i s employer,  the  court  Edward 30 Ltd.  an  interlocutory  e x c e p t i o n has c o n t i n u e d  Mareva d o c t r i n e as i l l u s t r a t e d Owen E n g i n e e r i n g  where r e f e r r i n g  the case  to  injunction  t h e defendant from d e a l i n g w i t h t h e f r u i t s  The the  was s u e d by t h e l a t t e r  c o n v e r s i o n o f t h e s t o l e n money, t h e e m p l o y e r was  by  restraining 29 theft.  of  an O n t a r i o c o u r t  L t d . v.  to the t r a d i t i o n a l  b e f o r e h i m , L o r d D e n n i n g , M.R.  i n the  i n t h e 1978  B a r c l a y s Bank rule,  of h i s  wake  case  of  International applicable i n  said:  "To t h i s g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e t h e r e i s a n e x c e p t i o n i n t h e case o f what i s c a l l e d e s t a b l i s h e d or obvious fraud...."31  It  i s clear  t h a t a p p l i c a n t s f o r t h e i n j u n c t i o n must p r o v e  prima  f a c i e case  o f f r a u d and a l s o c l e a r  debtor  i n that fraud.  The most o t h e r s  i n Canada,  legislature has enacted  i m p l i c a t i o n of  i n this  Province,  a the  as i n  a s t a t u t o r y remedy t o s e t 32 aside or ,reverse fraudulent transfer of property. Most 33 such r e m e d i e s b a s e d o n t h e 1570 S t a t u t e o f E l i z a b e t h and 34 the Fraudulent C o n v e y a n c e s A c t s o f 1 5 7 1 , 1585 a n d 1586 35 although s t a t u t e s c a n be f o u n d b a c k a s f a r a s 1376 which 12  d e c l a r e v o i d c o n v e y a n c e s and  p r e f e r e n c e s when made t o  escape  other lawful creditors.  law  little  regard and  for  flee  The  f o r c e n t u r i e s has  p r o t e c t i o n o f d e b t o r s who  i n t o places of holy church  "withdraw  g o o d s s o g i v e n by  take the p r o f i t 36 f r a u d and c o l l u s i o n . "  The recently,  was  British  course  o n l y be  completed little assets exist in  such  to,  utilized  (or  avail  here  to prevent  very  the  four  and  across  Canada,  can  seeking to preserve  the  fraudulent  been  is  of  debtor's  Serious problems  i n the proof of a c t u a l  of  always intent  cases.  traditional  rule  e x c e p t i o n of f r a u d t o the  c o n t i n u e s t o e x i s t and  r e g a r d l e s s of the f u t u r e of the Mareva  2.  Subj e c t  c a n be  a v a i l a b l e under Rule  utilized  Matter  46 o f t h e R u l e s  13  general  injunction.  E q u a l l y of b e n e f i t to a c r e d i t o r relief  and  until  a s u b s e q u e n t t r a n s f e r ) and  This or  lands  B u t e v e n t h e more m o d e r n  b e f o r e he d i s p o s e s o f them. event  there  once t h e impugned c o n v e y a n c e has  to the c r e d i t o r  i n any  of t h e i r  a verbatim r e p r o d u c t i o n of p a r t of 37  referred  1  and  Columbia s t a t u t e ,  hundred year o l d E l i z a b e t h a n law. legislation  themselves,  privileged,  h o l d t h e m a l o n g t i m e , and  had  of  Court:  is  the  "46. ( 1 ) ( a ) The C o u r t may make a n o r d e r for the detention, custody, or preserv a t i o n o f any p r o p e r t y t h a t i s t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r o f a p r o c e e d i n g o r as t o which a q u e s t i o n may a r i s e . " 3 8  Originally 39 equitable from of  jurisdiction,  most  of  Although  the seldom  limitations  provinces  explicitly  Some liberal "or  interpretation  Columbia,  the  from i t s language and, pre-trial  f o r an a n x i o u s have  subject matter." proceeding"  criticism extensions  attach-  o f t h e R u l e by e x p a n d i n g  a  the  be  more phrase sought  defined  as  Another has extended t h e meaning o f  include a non-judicial  claim  but  v i s i t e d by b r o t h e r j u d g e s a t s u c h o b v i o u s l y  both shabby  and l i m i t e d a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f t h e R u l e as a method  pre-judgment  exception  to  as  creditor.  attempted  be d e t a i n e d o r impounded c a n n o t p r e c i s e l y 41  "the  \  judges  in  procedural rule. 40  a s t o w h i c h a q u e s t i o n may a r i s e " when t h e a s s e t s  to  of  a  exception to the p r i n c i p l e p r o h i b i t i n g g r e a t scope  matter  i n E n g l a n d and  in British  of the Rule are c l e a r  ment, does n o t a f f o r d  "a  used  as  defendant  i s the very  has been c o d i f i e d h e r e ,  Canadian  inherent  t h e power t o r e s t r a i n a  d i s p o s i n g of a s p e c i f i c asset which  the l i t i g a t i o n  an  part of the court's  detention of a defendant's assets render 42 unreliable.  the  c.  PRE-JUDGMENT ALTERNATIVES  As not  a novel  ity  or  fleeing  by  universal  riate,  has  and  h i d i n g himself or h i s  Canadian  provinces,  debtor's  intention,  arrested  and  i f to  justice  roots  thirteenth  respondendum,  has  times,  by a c r e d i t o r  abscond, civil  t o be  e i t h e r as  i t had  devices  process  able  as  to  of s u i t  a  debtor  who  and  a him  judgment  century procedure  known a s  capias  ad  although  in  continued  to  be a v a i l a b l e  i s about t o  other  absconding  early  debtors  i t i s s e l d o m known flee.  English  seldom  were  common  judgment e x e c u t i o n a r r i v e d  court  personal a c t i o n s the defendant  outlawry  fled  law  effective  f o r c e n t u r i e s been assumed t h a t f o r a  had  of  have  and  foreign  I t was  the country in  15  England.  that 44  was  only  when  attachment  were  c o n t r i v e d a l l o w i n g the court to take j u r i s d i c t i o n over of  most  having i t s  t o make an a p p e a r a n c e i n c o u r t . 43 such  In  process,  have j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r  required  is  now  approp-  l e a r n s i n advance  he  by  while  circumstances.  obtained.  that h i s debtor  against  or  The  The  to  i n such  i t i s i n f r e q u e n t l y u s e d as  remedies  assets  Garnishment,  a creditor  held u n t i l  have e n a b l e d i n the  liabil-  t h e m o s t e f f e c t i v e means when  i t s limitations  i t is  t o seek t o a v o i d c i v i l  the j u r i s d i c t i o n .  almost  modern  i n the previous heading,  step f o r a debtor  attachment  actually  noted  successful  assets pre-  A about  which  more  will  c e r t a i n of t h e borough coerce  a  modest  form o f  be s a i d  later,  45  foreign was  c o u r t s o f London.  defendant absent from t h e c i t y  attachment, available  in  I t s i n t e n t was  to  into  returning  to  London i n o r d e r t o d e f e n d t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s a c t i o n . The d e v i c e 46 was s u c c e s s f u l f o r some c e n t u r i e s , although limited i n i t s 47 geographic scope, It  was  debt  while  but f e l l  i n existence available primarily  by  compassing  virtue  of the i n t r o d u c t i o n of  cases  canvass  in  this  legislation  en-  i s not the i n t e n t i o n of the writer to  a l l a v a i l a b l e procedures f o r attachment  as t h e y r e l a t e  t o t h e Mareva i n j u n c t i o n  are g e n e r a l l y well-known recent years. made  British  of  debts,  itself.  They  a n d much h a s b e e n w r i t t e n o f them i n  The D u n l o p  t e x t t o which e a r l i e r  r e f e r e n c e has  together w i t h s e v e r a l recent papers 48  Columbia  produced  w e l l d e s c r i b e t h e growing armoury  a b l e t o a c r e d i t o r , whether For  the creditor i n this  f a c e d w i t h an  i ti s possible  of attachment  to sequester the defaulter's assets l e f t 49  the  in  avail-  secured or unsecured.  ding debtor,  within  of  the broader attachment of debts. It  been  in  and appears never t o have l a u n c h e d a f o o t h o l d  country  save  i n t o d i s u s e over a c e n t u r y ago.  jurisdiction.  country to obtain a writ  As M c A l l i s t e r  however:  16  abscon-  has  behind  pointed  out  " N e e d l e s s t o s a y , t h e r e w i l l be few c a s e s w h e r e an a b s c o n d i n g d e b t o r w i l l be f o o l i s h e n o u g h t o l e a v e a n y e x i g i b l e p r o p e r t y behind (him)."50  While  absconding debtor l e g i s l a t i o n i s a v a i l a b l e  Canadian  jurisdictions,  British in.  Columbians  1978  form,  i t c e a s e d t o be o f  following  assistance  with repeal of the Absconding  a n d i s no l o n g e r p r e s e n t i n t h i s 51  save  f o r t h e Mareva p r i n c i p l e .  It  The trial  attachment  imprisonment, lation  or  Stubbs,  have  creditors some  time.  procedures,  writ  as  limitations  of attachment,  exceptions not  whether  in  &  recourse i n this  one a u t h o r i s i n c l i n e d  Co.  v.  f o r many regard  to  cases as a j u d i c i a l c u r e t o c o r r e c t a major 53 E n g l i s h d e b t o r - c r e d i t o r law.  17  pre-  garnishment,  t o the Rule i n L i s t e r  Mareva  obsolete  absconding debtors' l e g i s -  provided satisfactory  least  Law R e f o r m  and  by way o f  this  repealed  i n h e r e n t i n most  and o u r law has been d e f i c i e n t At  in  was  a recommendation of the B r i t i s h Columbia  t h a t t h e s t a t u t e was " b e y o n d r e p a i r 52 s h o u l d be r e p e a l e d . "  to  Debtors A c t  province  Commission and  i n a l l other  view  for the  weakness  FOOTNOTES CHAPTER I I 18.  ( 1 8 7 0 ) 5. Ch. A p p . 6 2 1 , e s p e c i a l l y 627.  L o r d H a t h e r l e y a t p.  19.  ( 1 8 7 6 ) 24 W.R. 1 0 1 3 , 3 C h a n . P r . C a s . 3 9 6 . See a s w e l l R o b i n s o n v . P i c k e r i n g ( 1 8 8 1 ) 16 C h . D. 6 6 0 , p e r James L . J . a t p. 6 6 1 .  20.  ( 1 8 9 0 ) 45 Ch. D. 1, [ 1 8 8 6 - 9 0 ] A l l , E.R. 797<  21.  Ibid,  22.  Baxter 372.  23.  Ibid.  24.  D u n l o p , C.R.B. C r e d i t o r - D e b t o r Law i n C a n a d a . C a r s w e l l , 1 9 8 1 . A t p.. 1 8 8 .  25.  See C h a p t e r  26.  R.S.B.C. 1 9 7 9 , c . 7 5 .  27.  R.S.B.C. 1 9 7 9 ,  28.  R o b e r t R e i s e r a n d Co. I n c . v . N a d o r e F o o d P r o c e s s i n g E q u i p m e n t L t d . e t a l [ 1 9 7 7 ] 81 D.L.R. ( 3 d ) 2 7 8 , 17 O.R. (2d) 717.  29.  C i t y of Toronto 257.  30.  Edward Owen E n g i n e e r i n g L t d . v. Barclays I n t e r n a t i o n a l L t d . [ 1 9 7 8 ] 1 A l l E.R. 9 7 6 .  31.  I b i d , a t p. 982. F o r f u r t h e r modern d a y i l l u s t r a t i o n s of t h e e x c e p t i o n t o t h e r u l e , see a l s o M i l l s and M i l l s v. P e t r o v i c e t a l [ 1 9 8 1 ] 118 D.L.R. ( 3 d ) 367 ( t h e f t o f f u n d s by a b o o k k e e p e r ) , C.D.N. R e s e a r c h a n d D e v e l o p m e n t Ltd. v . The Bank o f N o v a S c o t i a [ 1 9 8 1 ] 121 D.L.R. ( 3 d ) 485 ( f r a u d u l e n t c a l l o n l e t t e r o f c r e d i t ) a l t h o u g h s e t aside by t h e D i v i s i o n a l C o u r t on o t h e r grounds, see [ 1 9 8 2 ] 136 D.L.R. (3d) 656, and Rosen e t a l v. P u l l e n e t a l [ 1 9 8 2 ] 126 D.L.R. ( 3 d ) 62 ( b r e a c h o f c o n t r a c t o f intended marriage.)  32.  F r a u d u l e n t Conveyance A c t , R.S.B.C. 1 9 7 9 , c. F r a u d u l e n t P r e f e r e n c e A c t , R.S.B.C. 1 9 7 9 , c . 1 4 3 .  33.  13 E l i z .  a t p.23 ( C h . D . ) . v. Jacobs,  Moss e t a l . ( 1 8 8 9 ) 1 B.C.R. 370 a t p.  Toronto:  IV, i n f r a .  c . 121 . -  v.  Mcintosh  1, c. 5. 18  e t a l [ 1 9 7 7 ] 16 O.R. ( 2 d ) Bank  142;  Particularly 50 Edw.  3,  From t h e  27 E l i z .  c. 1379  1 , c.  4 and  29 E l i z .  1, c.  5.  6. S t a t u t e of 2 R i c h .  2,  c.  3.  The B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a F r a u d u l e n t C o n v e y a n c e A c t , s u p r a , fn 32, was o n l y r e v i s e d i n 1979 and now more closely resembles i t s Canadian counterparts. The original Elizabethan S t a t u t e was r e p e a l e d i n 1925 and replaced by p r o v i s i o n s c o n t a i n e d i n t h e Law o f P r o p e r t y A c t of t h a t y e a r ( 1 9 2 5 ) 15 Geo. 5, c. 20, s. 172. R u l e s o f t h e Supreme C o u r t , R.  46.  See f o r e x a m p l e , G r e a t W e s t e r n R a i l w a y v . B i r m i n g h a m & O x f o r d J u n c t i o n R a i l w a y ( 1 8 4 8 ) 2 Ph. 597, 41 E.R. 1074. The British Columbia Court of Appeal d e a l t earlier e q u i v a l e n t r u l e i n Wheatley v. Ellis W.W.R. 462. See the d e c i s i o n of F u l t o n , J . in Nicoll ( 1 9 7 9 ) 17 B.C.L.R. 356 f o r one v e r y l i b e r a l ation.  with an (1944) 3  v. Qak.es interpret-  For example, s e e comments o f M c E a c h e r n , C.J.S.C. in Dean v . F o r d C r e d i t C a n a d a L t d . e t a l , f n 16, s u p r a . D u n l o p , s u p r a , f n 24,  p.  195.  Ibid. The w r i t ne e x e a t r e g n o , r e s t r a i n i n g a d e f e n d a n t f r o m l e a v i n g t h e c o u n t r y , h a s e v e n more l i m i t e d a p p l i c ability and i s d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o e v i d e n c e as o p p o s e d to execution. See  Chapter  IV,  infra.  See t h o r o u g h a r t i c l e by Levy, Nathan. "Attachment, Garnishment and G a r n i s h m e n t E x e c u t i o n : Some American Problems Considered i n the L i g h t of the E n g l i s h Experience." ( 1 9 7 2 - 3 ) 5 C o n n e c t i c u t Law R e v i e w 399, p a r t i c u l a r l y b e g i n n i n g a t p. 407. Two H o u s e o f L o r d s d e c i s i o n s : M a y o r and A l d e r m a n of London v. Cox ( 1 8 6 7 ) L.R. 2 H.L. 239 and M a y o r and A l derman o f London v. L o n d o n J o i n t S t o c k B a n k (1881 ) 6 App. Cas. 393, e f f e c t i v e l y terminated the procedure. See f u r t h e r L e v y , s u p r a , f n 46, a t p. 424. Dunlop, supra, fn 24. See also Continuing Legal Education S o c i e t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Proceedings at Seminar on E x e c u t i o n , held at Vancouver, B. C. on F e b r u a r y 18, 1983. 19  49.  See M c A l l i s t e r ,  s u p r a , f n 11, a t p. 30.  50.  Ibid.  51.  R.S.B.C. 1 9 6 0 , c. 1, r e p e a l e d A u g u s t S.B.C. 1 9 7 8 , c . 1 1 , s. 1.  52.  See Law R e f o r m C o m m i s s i o n o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , Report on The A b s c o n d i n g Debtors A c t and B a i l A c t : Two Obsolete Acts (1978).  53.  Dunlop,  s u p r a , f n 2 4 , a t p. 1 9 7 .  20  1 5 t h , 1978 by  CHAPTER I I I - DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONCEPT  Against this Mareva d o c t r i n e i n 1975. traditional heritage  principles  outlined  forced  clearer while  is  obvious  t o encounter. one  must a l w a y s  leading authorities  b e f a m i l i a r t o many l a w y e r s  with  Mareva i n h e r s h o r t l i f e ,  t o b e t t e r understand  defendant Pyrrhic  and judges  t h e common position  look  back  who h a v e  concept  the course  to law in and by  brushed  so t o o i t i s h e l p f u l  victory!  With  the r e v i t a l i s a t i o n brokerages  the  years  t o ex-  and i t s a c c e p t e d ahead.  of international  t h e Second World  industry.  flourished  economic  judgment  well  i s but a  shipping focussed  in  t h a t C i t y re-emerged  in  War a s a c o m m e r c i a l  hub  The r e p u t a t i o n a n d v o l u m e o f  into  decade.  21  .a  t h e Common M a r k e t  t h e 1960's'and 70's  o r d e r f l u t t e r e d and began t o s u f f e r  part of the l a s t  against  experience  Britain's entry into  c e n t e r e d i n London,  following  legitimate  iness  .unsatisfied  w i t h o u t a s s e t s one l e a r n s f r o m  the  of  that  serves s o l e l y  first  from  FORMULATION OF THE MAREVA  An  and  to  i n t h e U n i t e d K i n g d o m may  amine t h e development o f t h e i n i t i a l  A.  reference  To s e e t h e p r e s e n t ,  now  refinements  and  change i n d i r e c t i o n which  perspective, the  That i t i s a r a d i c a l d e p a r t u r e  i n the previous chapter  emphasize t h e sharp was  background t h e n emerged t h e  in  bus-  before the  the  latter  Freight, markets  a l l became d e p r e s s e d  practicalities men  currency and  more  i n such  apparent  than  contracts, often involving  another.  i n the  performance or  three  to  their  without  trace.  Court  such  strain  the  as  and  absconding  obtain  the  statutory course  was  l a w we  plain;  large  were  the  Greek;  defendants vanished Commercial  f o r an  inter-  seeking to  t h e y had  on  the  remedies  shipowner  re-  deposit  h a v e e x a m i n e d was debtor  had  i t grew unecon-  D o n a l d s o n J . of t h e U n i t e d Kingdom  them f r o m d i s p o s i n g o f some f u n d s  country,  a  ultimately  i n j u n c t i o n against the defendants,  without  dollars,  N.Y.K.  who  vessels,  p a y m e n t s t o t h e o w n e r s and  The  clear, in  that  must  first  judgment.  Instead,  the  by  instance.  been p a i d but  w i t h a bank i n London.  were  an  into  i n L o n d o n r e f u s e d an e x p a r t e a p p l i c a t i o n  locutory  of  when  i n advance of r e q u i r e d  entered  continue to operate  ceased  millions  v e s s e l s to the defendants  some o f t h e c h a r t e r h i r e had omic  industry  is  payment.  shipowner provided  chartered  T h i s phenomenon  t h o u s a n d s and  Charters Japanese  economic  f o r commercial  shipping  a r e g e n e r a l l y made m o n t h s , e v e n y e a r s ,  commodities  times,  become o f p a r a m o u n t i m p o r t a n c e  i n t h e i r d e a l i n g s w i t h one  never  as  and  not  represented  general  Judicature  he  appealed;  at the h e a r i n g or the  language of  the  appeal.  s e c t i o n 45 o f t h e Supreme  (Consolidation) Act  (U.K.),  1925,  respondents  which  Within Court  provides  of  "A mandamus o r i n j u n c t i o n may be g r a n t e d o r a r e c e i v e r a p p o i n t e d by a n i n t e r l o c utory order of the court i n a l l cases i n which i t s h a l l appear j u s t o r convenient...."54 the  E n g l i s h Court of Appeal 55  georgis  i n Nippon  Yusen K a i s h a v.  Kara-  i n t h e l e a d i n g judgment o f t h e Master o f t h e  Rolls  said:  " I t has never been t h e p r a c t i c e o f t h e English Courts t o seize assets of a defendant i n advance o f judgment, o r t o r e s t r a i n t h e d i s p o s a l o f them.... It seems t o me t h a t t h e t i m e h a s come when we s h o u l d r e v i s e o u r p r a c t i c e . There i s no r e a s o n why t h e H i g h C o u r t o r t h i s C o u r t s h o u l d n o t make a n o r d e r s u c h a s i s a s k e d f o r here."56 Feeling the  Court  shipowner and  held  that  time f o r change had  than an i n j u n c t i o n  h a d shown a p r i m a  facie  was u n p a i d a n d t h e r e was r e a l  would  fear that  the  defendants  MAREVA),  case, S.A. 57  any  subsequent  d e c i s i o n went r e l a t i v e l y  another firm of s o l i c i t o r s  Naviera  purposes  juris-  c o u l d be e n t e r e d a g a i n s t them.  The  a second  The  c a s e t h a t t h e h i r e was d u e  defeating f o ra l lpractical  judgment which  vessel  granted.  move w h a t money t h e y h a d i n L o n d o n o u t s i d e t h e  diction,  until  s h o u l d be  come,  s e v e r a l weeks l a t e r  a l s o before Donaldson v.  the  International  plaintiff  on a t i m e c h a r t e r , '  unnoticed  J.  I n Mareva Compania  Bulkcarriers  shipowners  had  brought  S.A.  chartered  (The their  h i r e being payable h a l f monthly i n  23  advance. owners  The  third  treated  claimed  i n s t a l m e n t was  this  damages  as  n o t p a i d and  r e p u d i a t i o n of  f o r the breach.  chartered the v e s s e l to a t h i r d  The  the  the  contract  defendants  p a r t y who  was  ship-  had  making  sub-  payments  t o a London bank t o t h e c r e d i t  of the defendant.  The  tiffs  an i n j u n c t i o n t o  prevent  therefore  defaulters deposit  also  sought  from removing  out of the j u r i s d i c t i o n  J u s t i c e Donaldson  an i n t e r i m o r d e r b u t o n l y u n t i l by  the Court of Appeal,  v.  Stubbs  earlier the  traditional it.  appeal rule  the matter  feeling  the  the funds  authorities. judges  i n the L i s t e r  i n c a s e s where i t a p p e a r e d  this  time  on  c o u l d be  granted reviewed  h i m s e l f b o u n d by t h e The  o r d e r was  variously  Lister  there  con-  distinguished  the  l i n e or d i d not f e e l  R e l y i n g on t h e s t a t u t o r y a b i l i t y  effect  plain-  i n the bank.  Mr.  firmed;  and  t o g r a n t an  j u s t or convenient,  bound  by  injunction  the Court  in  r e d e f i n e d a c r e d i t o r ' s e q u i t a b l e r i g h t t o be p a i d  or  secured  f o r h i s d e b t b e f o r e he h a d  r i g h t by  judgment:  legally  established  " I f i t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e d e b t i s due and o w i n g , and t h e r e i s d a n g e r t h a t t h e d e b t o r may d i s p o s e o f h i s a s s e t s so as t o d e f e a t i t b e f o r e judgment, t h e c o u r t has j u r i s d i c t i o n i n a p r o p e r c a s e t o g r a n t an i n t e r l o c u t o r y judgment so as t o p r e v e n t him d i s p o s i n g o f t h o s e assets."58  24  this  Pointing vividly position  i n t h e s i t u a t i o n and  in  control  sole  from  accurately  his  charter  the f a c t  the Master  received  and  of the R o l l s  surmised t h a t the shipowner  hire  weak  that charterers  o f t h e f u n d s t h e y had  the s u b - c h a r t e r ,  but  to the p l a i n t i f f ' s  s h o u l d t h e m o n i e s be  would  and  banked  protectively never  removed  London d e p o s i t o r y out of the j u r i s d i c t i o n  were  from  see their  concluded:  "In f a c e of t h i s danger, I t h i n k the C o u r t o u g h t t o g r a n t an I n j u n c t i o n t o r e s t r a i n the defendants from d i s p o s i n g of t h e s e m o n i e s now i n t h e b a n k i n London, u n t i l the t r i a l or judgment i n this action."59  Welcome early the  o b s e r v e r s were c r i t i c a l state  change; 1873, be  said  of  settled  though  these  were,  of such a d r a s t i c , turnabout  law.  There  had  the o s t e n s i b l e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l even p r i o r  decisions  been  b a s e had 60  to the L i s t e r d e c i s i o n ,  t o be n e w l y - d i s c o v e r e d .  As one  and  no  in  statutory  existed could  since hardly  o b s e r v e r commented:  " I f one i g n o r e s t h e c o u r t ' s r e a s o n i n g , t h e d e c i s i o n i s w e l c o m e f o r i t shows the l i b e r a l a t t i t u d e of the Court of Appeal towards a p l a i n t i f f r e q u i r i n g protection. I f the c o u r t s , whenever a n o v e l p o i n t came b e f o r e them w e r e t o spend t h e i r t i m e w o n d e r i n g whether t h e y had j u r i s d i c t i o n t o a c t , t h e n t h e law would never d e v e l o p ; i t would remain s t a t i c and d e v o i d o f l i f e . " 6 1  Whether judgments  stood  and  guided 25  or  n o t on  trial  sound  judges  in  ground,  the  England  for  several  years.  Mustill,  was  As  later  one  of the  those  judges,  Mr.  Justice  to describe:  "As a r e s u l t o f t h e s e d e c i s i o n s , t h e M a r e v a i n j u n c t i o n was r e c o g n i s e d a s f u l f i l l i n g a useful role albeit within a limited field. Where a c r e d i t o r had a c l a i m a g a i n s t a f o r e i g n debtor whigh was n o t d i s p u t e d o r was n o t / c a p a b l e o f s e r i o u s d i s p u t e , i t f r e q u e n t l y happened t h a t h i s only p r a c t i c a l prospect of o b t a i n i n g p a y m e n t was t o o b t a i n e x e c u t i o n a g a i n s t a n a s s e t known t o be s i t u a t e w i t h i n the j u r i s d i c t i o n . . . . . I t was t o c a s e s o f t h i s n a t u r e t h a t M a r e v a r e l i e f was m a i n l y i f n o t e x c l u s i v e l y a p p l i e d . . . before the (next) d e c i s i o n of the Court of Appeal."62  In since  1975,  refine  the  reported tion,  the Court  o f A p p e a l has 63  principle.  High Court  the  at l e a s t twenty-four  issue  While  are  decisions involving  this  reached 64  The  Lordships,  w h i l e r e s e r v i n g on  the  SISKINA  t h e House o f  earlier  assume t h e B.  decisions,  ITS  ially  has  and  to  dozen  form of i n j u n c -  Lords  in  but  one  that appeal,  were n e v e r t h e l e s s  their  correctness prepared  to  principle.  REFINEMENT  the  refining  b e e n much e x p a n d e d and  declining  on  another  the q u e s t i o n of the  e x i s t e n c e o f t h e power i n  In Mareva  i n 1980,  cases  ample o p p o r t u n i t y  there  instance,  of  had  reported  to " f e t t e r 26  process, 65  enlarged.  ( t h e p r i n c i p l e ) by  the  scope  of  While  init-  rigid  rules  from  which  Denning develop  a judge  i s never a t l i b e r t y  a n d o t h e r members o f t h e C o u r t t h e r e a f t e r c a s e by c a s e  litigants  to  bear  66  to depart,"  Lord  began  some c o n s i d e r a t i o n s f o r t r i a l  to  j u d g e s and  i n m i n d when s e e k i n g t o a p p l y  the  dis-  c r e t i o n a u t h o r i s e d by t h e s t a t u t e .  W h i l e we s h a l l g u i d e l i n e s which  country, i t  t o here note t h e speed w i t h which  refinements  interesting  to  the procedure Mareva  h a v e come t o b e a d o p t e d  were p u t i n p l a c e .  evolution,  early  were  obtained invariably  appeals, defendants  first  time.  company  1977 67  et a l (Pertamina),  f o r the  ex p a r t e ,  in  two y e a r s injunction  f o r breach of a charter-  never a p p l i e d  In Perusahaan  For the f i r s t  most a p p l i c a t i o n s  w e r e made i n s h i p p i n g c a s e s , u s u a l l y party,  review the s p e c i f i c i n this  is  of  later  and even on  t o be h e a r d .  Rasu  Maritime  S. A.  b o t h s i d e s were h e a r d  e n t e r e d i n t o t a n k e r c h a r t e r p a r t i e s when With  the  o n w a r d s , t h e m a r k e t c o l l a p s e d a n d many c h a r t e r e r s  to  renegotiate  contracts.  The  s u c c e s s f u l a t t h e t a s k a n d was o u s t e d f r o m  One associated Rasu  of  market  t o a c t as  General  from  sought  was  not  power.  t h e e n t r e p r e n e u r s who h a d  w i t h t h e G e n e r a l h a d s e t up a  Maritime,  state  the increase i n world o i l prices  1973  their  v.  f o r the  G e n e r a l Sutowo on b e h a l f o f an I n d o n e s i a n  was a t i t s p e a k .  the  Liberian  broker f o r the Indonesian  been  company, company  by p l a c i n g o r d e r s i n t h e w o r l d m a r k e t f o r t h e h i r e o f for  the  Indonesians.  chartering one  Rasu used  t o t h e G e n e r a l and  such v e s s e l ,  the General's  some o f i t s own  in fact,  t h e MANHATTAN DUKE,  fall  from  built  ships  and  i n 1976,  tankers  delivered  just prior  h i r e payments t o Rasu ceased  and  I n d o n e s i a n company's a s s e t s were r a p i d l y b e i n g t r a n s f e r r e d national  s a f e t y b a c k home.  against  the  Indonesians  A t t h e t i m e R a s u commenced for  $10,000,000.00,  w e r e some m a t e r i a l s o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s , l o c a t e d on L i v e r p o o l d o c k s .  appeal  initially  A M a r e v a was  ex p a r t e ,  was  For the Court,  the  e x i s t e n c e of the i n j u n c t i o n , Pointing  D e n n i n g M.R. shall  p a r t on on  primarily  a l s o found  later  While  There  as w e l l  an  and  was u n s u c c e s s f u l .  of the  Rolls  then simply l a b e l l e d statutory  declining  t h e C o u r t a d d e d two  for "a  discretion, basis  which  the i n j u n c t i o n  t h e b a s i s o f u n c e r t a i n t y as t o o w n e r s h i p  in  of the  cargo  refinements  which  i n t e g r a l p a r t of Mareva j u r i s p r u d e n c e . First,  unless  combined  l a t e r d i s s o l v e d . a n d on  some l i m i t e d h i s t o r i c a l 68  examine.  the L i v e r p o o l docks,  remain  to the  to  $12,000,000.  sought  the Master  by  the  action  i n a somewhat s t r o n g e r o p i n i o n h i s j u s t i f i c a t i o n  Mareva."  we  valued at  to r e s t o r e the order, the p l a i n t i f f  outlined  the  o f t h e company e x c e e d e d $ 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 .  while granted  to  power.  The  liabilities  in  the  plaintiff  can  the  injunction  show " t h a t he h a s 28  should not a good  issue  arguable  69  case."  T h i s t e s t or onus w h i l e  p e c u l i a r to  instances  of  Mareva a f t e r the e a r l i e r d e c i s i o n i n American Cyanamid Co. v. 70 Ethicon Ltd., was l a t e r adopted as one of the f i r m guide71 lines.  Second,  directed  not  it  only  was  held that injunctions  a g a i n s t money  and  bank  could  accounts,  be but  a g a i n s t goods as w e l l .  Thereafter, soared  in  Britain's twelve  popularity  and  during  against had  a defendant who  assets  within  the  Court  had  refinement.  While proceeding  injunction  thriving industry for 72 lawyers." In a s e r i e s of 73  the next t h r e e y e a r s ,  c o n c l u d e d the major t a s k of  ancilliary  Mareva  became a  commercial l i t i g a t i o n  cases  "the  initially  developed  as  as p a r t of a c l a i m f o r debt was  an  advanced  out of the j u r i s d i c t i o n but  the j u r i s d i c t i o n ,  i t is  clear  who  it  now  i n c l u d e s defendants who  .are not f o r e i g n - b a s e d but who may be 74 described as r e s i d e n t . T h i s was i n f a c t suggested by Lord 75 Hailsham i n o b i t e r i n The SISKINA.  Equally, to  while  initially  p r e v e n t removal of a s s e t s out of  scope  of  disposition take  long  orders  granted  been  was  jurisdiction,  the  extended  of a s s e t s w i t h i n the j u r i s d i c t i o n . to  realise  transfer,  mortgage  order  leave  to  has  the  the order  that a  defendant  who  or encumber h i s a s s e t s c o u l d  them  within  the  jurisdiction  to  include  It did could abide and  not sell, the still  frustrate his creditor. or  on  motion  to vary  defendant w i l l  normally  the  course  ordinary  satisfy  the  jeopardized  court by  Although the be  to  whether aircraft, It  terms of a  plaintiff's 77 variation.  such a  the  the  nature  injunction  d e f e n d a n t has  against  position will  injunction will  of  money,  v e s s e l s o r most o t h e r  issues  Mareva  application  allowed  t h a t the  which  in  a.contested  to deal with h i s assets 76 of h i s business, i t i s necessary  The assets  on  both  issue  and  or  in to be  a l l claim  real  moveables or  specific  against  entitlement goods,  not  a  property, 78 immoveables.  unspecific  but  79 ascertainable ambulatory any  assets  effect  and  so a s  c l a s s of p r o p e r t y  be  be  sought,  specified  of  an  to subsequent a d d i t i o n s 80 i n the i n j u n c t i o n .  to  i n which the  once r e s t r i c t e d  u n l i m i t e d and  i s capable  to apply  Actions can  once g r a n t e d ,  corollary  Mareva  t o d e b t c l a i m s , a p p e a r now  orders  have been g i v e n i n n e g l i g e n c e , 81 contract, and matrimonial claims; an o r d e r has b e e n 82 in a claim for costs.  I n 1979,  c e r t a i n p r o c e d u r e s were  to  tort, given  adopted  by  t h e E n g l i s h c o u r t s as p r e r e q u i s i t e s t o t h e g r a n t i n g o f a 83 84 \Mareva and as we shall see, each of the Canadian appellate degrees. courts  courts  has  Generally, as  approved these  t h a t has  t h e p r a c t i c e has 30  guidelines  been t r u e of o t h e r spread.  The  only  in  varying  Commonwealth Australian  appeal Court  court  to review  of Appeal, 85  Another, Chandris  the d o c t r i n e ,  t h e New  i n R i l e y McKay P t y .  recently  Ltd.  South v.  Wales  McKay  d e c l i n e d to f o r m a l l y endorse the  guidelines observing  that i t  and Third  was  " . . . u n d e s i r a b l e to undertake the f o r m u l a t i o n of g e n e r a l t e s t s or boundary l i n e s which might, i n t h e i r very g e n e r a l i t y , preclude or d i s t o r t the u s e f u l development of t h i s new remedy."86 Expressing future what  use  g e n e r a l l y has  possible fully (as  of the d o c t r i n e ,  t e s t e d concept.  perspective common l a w  the and  and,  s c e p t i c i s m as  the A u s t r a l i a n  been j u d i c i a l  a b u s e o f a new  four e a r l i e r  some  caution against  at least  permitting  i n j u n c t i o n to the  r a t i o n a l e f o r the departure the b a s i s of the  court  into earlier  as  " . . . t h e r i s k t h a t t h e . d e f e n d a n t w i l l so d e a l w i t h h i s a s s e t s t h a t he w i l l s t u l t i f y and r e n d e r i n e f f e c t i v e any j u d g m e n t g i v e n by t h e c o u r t i n t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s a c t i o n , and t h u s i m p a i r t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t a n d r e n d e r i t i m p o t e n t p r o p e r l y and e f f e c t i v e l y to administer j u s t i c e . . . . The j u r i s d i c t i o n t o g r a n t t h e i n j u n c t i o n i s n o t t o be e x e r c i s e d s i m p l y t o p r e c l u d e a debtor from d e a l i n g w i t h h i s a s s e t s . . . . I t i s d i r e c t e d to d i s p o s i t i o n s which... a r e i n t e n d e d t o f r u s t r a t e o r have the necessary e f f e c t of f r u s t r a t i n g , the p l a i n t i f f i n h i s a t t e m p t s t o seek t h r o u g h t h e c o u r t a remedy f o r t h e o b l i g a t i o n t o w h i c h he c l a i m s t h e d e f e n d a n t i s s u b j e c t . " 8 8  31  not stand  put  from the  remedy  the  reflects  i n that country,  In a l l o w i n g the 87  s t a t e courts had),  confirmed  court  to  FOOTNOTES CHAPTER I I I 54.  15 & 16 G e o . 5, c . 4 9 . T h i s p r o v i s i o n r e p e a t s s e c . 25 ( 8 ) o f t h e J u d i c a t u r e A c t (U.K.) o f 1 8 7 3 .  55.  S u p r a , f n 9.  56.  Ibid,  57.  S u p r a , f n 8.  58.  Ibid,  p e r D e n n i n g , M.R. a t p. 215 ( A l l E . R . ) .  59.  Ibid,  a t p.  60.  See f n 2 0 , s u p r a .  61.  L a z a r i d e s , M.T. "The M a r e v a I n j u n c t i o n - a n A n a l y s i s " ( 1 9 7 8 ) C i t y o f L o n d o n Law R e v i e w 4 3 , a t p . 4 7 .  62.  I n Third Chandris Shipping Corporation v. Unimarine S.A. (The P Y T H I A ) [ 1 9 7 9 ] Q.B. 6 4 5 , 3 W.L.R. 1 2 2 , 2 L l o y d s Rep. 1 8 4 , 2 A l l E. R. 9 7 2 , a t p . 975 ( A l l E . R . ) .  63.  See Appendix I .  64.  I b r a h i m S h a n k e r a n d Co. a n d O t h e r s v . D i t o s C o m p a n i a N a v i e r a S.A. (The S I S K I N A ) [ 1 9 7 7 ] 3 W.L.R. 8 1 8 , 3 A l l E.R. 8 0 3 , [ 1 9 7 8 ] 1 L l o y d s Rep. 1, ( 1 9 7 9 ) A.C. 2 1 0 .  65.  F o r f u l l e r d i s c u s s i o n , s e e a n a r t i c l e by P o w l e s , D a v i d , "The Mareva I n j u n c t i o n Expanded" (1981) Journal of B u s i n e s s Law 4 1 5 .  66.  [ 1 9 7 7 ] 2 L l o y d s Rep. 3 9 7 , 3 A l l E.R. 3 2 4 , ( 1 9 7 8 ) 1 Q.B. 6 4 4 , a t p . 333 ( A l l E . R . ) .  67.  Ibid.  68.  See C h a p t e r IV, i n f r a .  69.  P e r t a m i n a , s u p r a , f n 66, a t p.  70.  Supra, p. 6 7 .  71.  See C h a p t e r V I , i n f r a , a t p. 7 1 .  72.  McAllister,  73.  Particularly:  a t p . 283 ( A l l E . R . ) .  216.  f n 5; C f . d i s c u s s i o n  334.  i n Chapter VI, i n f r a , a t  s u p r a , f n 1 1 , a t p. 37. ( i n chronological order)  32  Associated B u l k C a r r i e r s L t d . v . Koch S h i p p i n g I n c . (The FUOSHAN MARU) [ 1 9 7 8 ] 1 L l o y d s Rep. 2 4 ; C i t i b a n k N.A. v . Hobbs S a v i l l & Co. L t d . e t a l (The PAN GLOBAL F R I E N D S H I P ) [ 1 9 7 8 ] 1 L l o y d s R e p . 3 6 8 ; C r e t a n o r M a r i t i m e Co. L t d . v . I r i s h M a r i n e Management Ltd. ( T h e CRETAN HARMONY) [ 1 9 7 8 ] 1 W.L.R. 9 6 6 , 1 L l o y d s Rep. 4 2 5 , 3 A l l E.R. 1 6 4 ; N e g o c i o s d e l M a r S.A. v . D o r i c S h i p p i n g C o r p . S.A. ASSIOS) [1979] 1 L l o y d s Rep. 3 3 1 ; Montecchi v . Shimco (U.K.) L i m i t e d 1180, [ 1 9 8 0 ] 1 L l o y d s Rep. 5 0 ;  [1979]  (The  1 W.L.R.  Gebr. V a n W e e l d e S c h e e p v a a r t K a n t o o r B.V. v . H o m e r i c Marine S e r v i c e s L t d . (.The AGRABELE) [ 1 979] 2 Lloyds Rep. 117; Etablissement Esefka International Ansalt Bank o f N i g e r i a [ 1 9 7 9 ] 1 L l o y d s Rep. 4 5 5 ;  v.  Central  Third C h a n d r i s S h i p p i n g C o r p o r a t i o n v . U n i m a r i n e S.A. (The PYTHHA) [ 1 9 7 9 ] 3 W.L.R. 1 2 2 , 2 L l o y d s R e p . 1 8 4 , Q.B. 6 4 5 , 2 A l l E.R. 9 7 2 ; C h a r t e r e d Bank v . E.R. 2 0 5 ;  Daklouche  [ 1 9 8 0 ] 1 W.L.R. 1 0 7 , 1  Allen a n d O t h e r s v . Jambo H o l d i n g s L t d . and [ 1 9 8 0 ] 1 W.L.R. 1 2 5 2 , 2 A l l E.R. 5 0 2 ;  A l l  Others  I r a q u i M i n i s t r y of.. D e f e n c e v . A r c e p e y S h i p p i n g C o . S. A. (Gillespie B r o t h e r s a n d Co. L t d . i n t e r v e n i n g ) (The ANGEL B E L L ) [ 1 9 8 0 ] 1 L l o y d s R e p . 6 3 2 , 1 A l l E.R. 4 8 0 , [ 1 9 8 1 ] 2 W.L.R. 4 8 8 , Q.B. 6 5 ; Prince A b d u l Rahman v . W.L.R. 1 2 6 8 , 3 A l l E.R.  Abu-Taha a n d A n o t h e r 409.  [1980]  1  74.  B a r c l a y - J o h n s o n v . Y u i l l [ 1 9 8 0 ] 1 W.L.R. 1 2 5 9 , 3 A l l E.R. 1 9 0 . P r i n c e A b d u l Rahman v . A b u - T a h a a n d A n o t h e r , supra, f n 7 3 , C h a r t e r e d Bank v . D a k l o u c h e , s u p r a , f n 73.  75.  Supra,  76.  S e e f n 77 a n d C h a p t e r  77.  THE A S S I O S , f n 73; see a l s o M c A l l i s t e r ' s a r t i c l e on point, f n 11. While the i n i t i a l order i s normally granted i ng e n e r a l terms, a t t h e request o f a defendant the Court, p a r t i c u l a r l y a s more d e t a i l s o f t h e d e f e n dant's a s s e t s become known, w i l l o f t e n permit him t o  f n 6 4 , a t p. 9 ( L l o y d s R e p . ) . VI, infra,  33  p. 7 9 .  I  deal with h i s stock i n trade i f s u f f i c i e n t other assets or security are s t i l l a v a i l a b l e f o r the protection of the p l a i n t i f f . 78.  R a s u M a r i t i m e S. A. v . P e r u s a h a a n e t a l , s u p r a , f n 66. See a l s o A l l e n a n d O t h e r s v . Jambo H o l d i n g s L t d . a n d O t h e r s , s u p r a , f n 73.  79.  T h i r d C h a n d r i s S h i p p i n g C o r p o r a t i o n v. (The P Y T H I A ) , f n 6 2 .  80.  C r e t a n o r M a r i t i m e Co. L t d . , f n 73.  81.  A l l e n a n d O t h e r s v . Jambo H o l d i n g s , f n 73; BarclayJohnson v. Y u i l l , f n 74; P i v o r a r o f f v. Chirnalbaeff ( 1 9 7 8 ) 16 S.A.S.R. 329; Manousakis v . M a n o u s a k i s , f n 142; Quinn v. M a r s t a C e s s i o n , f n 235, a r e b u t examples.  82.  Faith Panton Property Plan L t d . v. Hodgetts A n o t h e r [ 1 9 8 1 ] 1 W.L.R. 9 2 7 , 2 A l l E.R. 8 7 7 .  83.  Third Chandris,  84.  Infra,  85.  [ 1 9 8 2 ] 1 N.S.W.L.R. 2 6 4 .  86.  Ibid,  87.  See a r t i c l e by H o d g e k i s s , C.C. "Mareva I n j u n c t i o n s R e c e n t A u s t r a l i a n D e v e l o p m e n t s " ( 1 9 8 3 ) 99 Law Q u a r t e r l y Review 7 and a l s o , Hetherington, M. . "The Mareva Injunction: Australian E q u i t y " ( 1 9 8 0 ) 18 Law Society Journal 55 a n d B o w e r s , J . and Rosen, H., "Mareva Injunctions: A n a l y s i s o f R e c e n t C a s e s " ( 1 9 8 1 ) New , Law Journal 517 f o r f u l l e r discussion of Australian and some New Z e a l a n d d e v e l o p m e n t s .  88.  Ibid,  L t d . v. I r i s h  Unimarine  S.A.  M a r i n e Management  and  supra,, f n 6 2 .  c h a p t e r V I , p. 7 0 .  a t p. 2 7 6 .  a l s o a t p. 2 7 6 .  34  CHAPTER I V - FOREIGN ATTACHMENT  A.  EARLY ENGLAND  Early justification customs. and  f o r t h e Mareva o r d e r  A s we s h a l l  their  arguments  see,  these  or  commercially  practice  is  effecting  i t by j u d i c i a l  of course  principle  way,  common  d i d not remain i n  England  where  W h e t h e r i t was  to reintroduce from t h e  cases  invoking the  commercial d i s p u t e s ,  until  i n their  Court's  mercantile practices  Admiralty  1875, distinct  heritage  the  wisdom  of  claims  gradually  found  help,  Courts,  attachment  often  w i t h Lord M a n s f i e l d ' s generous  separately  the  foreign  process.  law of England.  practice  or  a question apart  were i n v a r i a b l y  'Admiralty,  historical  ancient  appropriate  The f i r s t  their  in  c o n t i n u a t i o n elsewhere i s d o u b t f u l .  politically  in  f o u n d some  into  operating  the quite  h a d i n c o r p o r a t e d much o f c i v i l area  and  of j u r i s d i c t i o n  the  genesis  of  law  by v i r t u e  of  i t s basis  of  substantive law.  The and  freight  attempts practices  a r e common s t e p s  at extension in  attachment of v e s s e l s , i n admiralty  of the p r i n c i p l e  England during  c e n t u r i e s w e r e n o t uncommon.  35  to  the eighteenth  their  proceedings other and  cargo and  commercial nineteenth  The  early  arguments r e l i e d  on  custom o f t h e C i t y and P o r t C o u r t s o f London r e f e r r e d previous was  c h a p t e r as f o r e i g n attachment.  case of Pertamina,  ancient  London l a w which  to  departed  attach  assets  Lord Denning b r i e f l y permitted a p l a i n t i f f l e f t behind 90  by  a  to i na  no r e f e r e n c e  made i n d e c i s i o n s f i r s t g r a n t i n g t h e i n j u n c t i o n , 89  later  writ  While  an o l d  i n the  reviewed the to  debtor  obtain who  a  had  the jurisdiction. 91 Quoting 92  an  1842 t e x t b y P u l l i n g ,  pointed  f r o m a 1723 t e x t b y B o h u n the Master  of the Rolls  and  i n 1977  t o w h a t he d e s c r i b e d a s t h e " c u s t o m s o f E n g l a n d " : " . . . t h i s mode o f p r o c e e d i n g , w h i c h seems t o have p r e v a i l e d a t a v e r y e a r l y p e r i o d i n L o n d o n , a s i n o t h e r Roman p r o v i n c e s , was always considered extremely important t o t h e c i t i z e n s a s a c o m m e r c i a l p e o p l e , who, h a v i n g g i v e n c r e d i t t o a t r a d e r , m i g h t be d e b a r r e d o f t h e i r remedy by h i s g o i n g o u t of t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e i r c o u r t s , t h o u g h a t t h e same t i m e he m i g h t h a v e l e f t a m p l e e f f e c t s b e h i n d him i n t h e hands o f t h i r d parties.... T h i s c u s t o m a r y mode o f p r o c e e d ings s t i l l exists i n other ancient c i t i e s and t o w n s i n E n g l a n d , a s B r i s t o l , E x e t e r , L a n c a s t e r , as w e l l as i n S c o t l a n d , and i n J e r s e y , and i n most m a r i t i m e towns on t h e c o n t i n e n t o f Europe.... Any k i n d o f goods or money b e l o n g i n g t o t h e d e f e n d a n t may be a t t a c h e d w h e t h e r l o c k e d up i n b o x e s o r n o t , (for t h e c o u r t may o r d e r them t o b e o p e n e d ) .... T h i s remedy i s n o t c o n f i n e d t o c i t i zens, o r even r e s i d e n t s w i t h i n t h e c i t y ; i t i s a common p r o c e s s , o p e n t o a n y p e r s o n when h i s d e b t o r h a s p r o p e r t y w i t h i n t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of the court...."93  T h e r e was no  36  doubt as t o i t s e f f i c i e n c y  94 and  as  teenth  Levy has r e p o r t e d , century,  f o r e i g n attachment,  Merchant,  was  necessary  as i n every  have  existed,  departure they the  by t h e c l o s e e v e n o f t h e  already  an a n c i e n t  derived  custom.  s o c i e t y i nwhich  from  t h e Law  I t was  credit  four-  clearly  transactions  c r e d i t o r s h a v e b e e n t r o u b l e d by t h e n e f a r i o u s  o f p e r s o n s t o whom t h e y  have s o l d goods on c r e d i t . commercial centers  was - w i t h  citizens  t o disappear  London,  i n the world  greatest problem, p a r t i c u l a r l y commerce  h a v e made l o a n s  or to  as t h e l a r g e s t o f  at that  time,  had t h e  when a s u b s t a n t i a l p a r t o f t h e  f o r e i g n e r s who w e r e more a p t without  whom  than  local  warning.  T h i s means, d e v e l o p e d a s a m e t h o d w h e r e by  local  c r e d i t o r s could reach  departed  debtors  forerunner already privilege  have  left  behind,  discussed.  Although  of the Port and,City • ; from an e a r l y time,  t o have s t i l l  have its  might suggest that three of  o f London C o u r t s 95  disputes  was  early  we  have  by k i n g s  a  and  t h e c u s t o m c o u l d h a r d l y be  guise.  t o pursue the t o p i c f u r t h e r ,  important  factors respecting the  f o r e i g n a t t a c h m e n t a s known i n E n g l a n d  been c o n s i d e r e d use  an  b e e n a p p l i c a b l e i n 1975 o r e v e n 1977 a s a  Emboldened  practice  their  o s t e n s i b l y g u a r a n t e e d as  basis f o r i t s r e - i n t r o d u c t i o n i n another  one  was  t o t h e modern d a y A b s c o n d i n g D e b t o r A c t s 94a  parliaments said  might  w i t h d e s p a t c h any a s s e t s  by t h e M a s t e r o f t h e R o l l s .  generally  restricted  i n v o l v i n g t r a d e r s and t h e i r  to  should Firstly,  wholly  commercial  customers,  o n e o f whom  was of  invariably a foreigner the courts.  involving  two  I t was  and b e y o n d  the normal  n o t a remedy a v a i l a b l e  citizens  or  subjects  jurisdiction  in  engaged  situations in  a  legal  quarrel.  Secondly, general requirement that to  an a p p l i c a t i o n  notice  a f t e r about  f o r the w r i t of attachment  Such w r i t s  Mareva  w h i l e the former loses  efficiency  t h e r e was  be g i v e n t o a d e f e n d a n t  i n London. and  1750,  by a  a  prior  plaintiff  were n o t a v a i l a b l e ex p a r t e as i s the  of the l a t t e r ,  much o f  i t could  the  fascinating  n o t be o b t a i n e d  without  96  summons  and n o t i c e .  T h i s change i n p r e v i o u s p r a c t i c e  was  b r o u g h t a b o u t by c o r o l l a r y r e f o r m s i n mesne p r o c e s s i n common law s u p e r i o r  c o u r t s w h i c h , f o r example,  enabled p l a i n t i f f s to 97 obtain judgment i n d e f a u l t of appearance and introduced 98 methods o f g a r n i s h m e n t f o r c r e d i t o r s . Lastly, practice, the  House  because  and  of i t s f l a g r a n t  o f L o r d s i n 1867  most abuse,  approved  importantly, was  a writ  the  a b a n d o n e d when of  prohibition  a g a i n s t the London c o u r t from p r o c e e d i n g w i t h i t s attachment 99 process. A s e c o n d c a s e i n 1881 i n t h e same f o r u m p r o v i d e d 1 00 i t s f i n a l death k n e l l . W h i l e H a l s b u r y comments  "The p r o c e s s o f f o r e i g n a t t a c h m e n t . . . t h o u g h s t i l l v a l i d , has f a l l e n i n t o d i s u s e s i n c e t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e House o f L o r d s i n [ t h e two c a s e s e a r l i e r referred to] "101  \ \  ;>  I 38  the  b e t t e r view of s c h o l a r s  altogether  ceased  to exercise  one  m o d e r n r e f e r e n c e c a n be  to  note  recent  i s t h a t the London  t h e s e a n c i e n t powers 1 02  found.  appears  in  then  and  I t i s perhaps  a l s o t h a t no comment w h a t e v e r  (1979)  courts  not  relevant the  most  e d i t i o n of Halsbury. A c e n t u r y b e f o r e Mareva a r r i v e d  i n England  " . . . t h e t i m e had become p r o p i t i o u s f o r the j e t t i s o n i n g of a s e r i e s of proc e d u r e s w h i c h o f f e n d e d t h e modern sense o f f a i r p l a y more t h a n t h e y d i d t h e m e d i e v a l a t t i t u d e s , and w h i c h w e r e t h o u g h t . . . t o be b a d f o r b u s i n e s s . " 1 0 3 So much f o r t h e c u s t o m s o f  (B)  IN SCOTLAND  I t was United  Kingdom  reference other is  England.  into  should  not u n n a t u r a l s i n c e e n t r y of  the European  be h a d  Economic  to s i m i l a r  laws  member n a t i o n s o f t h e C o m m u n i t y .  a c o n t r a c t u a l g o a l and  enforcement  congruence  an a d m i t t e d aim.  The  U.K.  nations  based  attachment and e y e s  on  civil  of t h e i r  first  turned northward  39  that  practices  Comity  in  a m o n g s t them  l a w s and  Court of Appeal  law a k i n t o the  p r o c e s s i n London.  Community  and  t o e x a m i n e w h a t a r e on t h e s u r f a c e p r a c t i c e s  the  their turned  i n some  European  abandoned  foreign  They d i d n o t have t o l o o k f a r to Scotland.  "Now t h a t we h a v e j o i n e d t h e Common M a r k e t , i t would be a p p r o p r i a t e t h a t we s h o u l d f o l l o w s u i t , a t a n y r a t e i n regard t o defendants not w i t h i n the jurisdiction. By d o i n g s o we s h o u l d be f u l f i l l i n g o n e o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h e T r e a t y o f Rome, t h a t i s t h e h a r m o n i s a t i o n o f t h e laws o f t h e member c o u n t r i e s . " 1 0 4  And  i n a later  case,  Lord Denning  affirms:  "Now t h a t we a r e i n t h e Common Mark e t , i t i s o u r d u t y t o do o u r p a r t i n h a r m o n i s i n g t h e laws o f t h e country "105 and: "In o r d e r t o harmonise t h e laws o f t h e Common M a r k e t c o u n t r i e s , i t i s t h e r e f o r e a p p r o p r i a t e t h a t we s h o u l d apply p r o t e c t i v e measures here so as t o p r e v e n t these i n s u r ance monies b e i n g d i s p o s e d o f b e f o r e judgment."106 Of Rome there  and  conventions  i s no d o u b t .  process,  the  Lords b l u n t l y  Lords  the  among member n a t i o n s  of  Treaty  the  of  E.E.C.,  As t o t h e r o l e o f E n g l i s h c o u r t s i n t h e of Appeal  but f a i r l y  the d i s t i n c t i o n  g o a l and aim o f t h e  i n Ordinary  reminded t h e Master  between l e g i s l a t i v e  i n the  House  of  of the Rolls  of  and j u d i c i a l f u n c t i o n s :  "There i s l i t t l e encouragement here for judges of n a t i o n a l courts of member s t a t e s t o jump t h e g u n by i n t r o d u c i n g t h e i r own n o t i o n s o f w h a t w o u l d be a s u i t a b l e h a r m o n i s a t i o n o f laws c o n c e r n i n g t h e i r j u r i s d i c t i o n and t h a t o f c o u r t s i n o t h e r member s t a t e s . " 1 0 7 40  Lord with  by t h e o t h e r  1968  E.E.C.  f o u r Law L o r d s ,  Convention  member s t a t e s ,  D i p l o c k , whose s p e e c h was  on J u r i s d i c t i o n  out that the  required  s u c h a s Germany w h i c h e x e r c i s e d  over a defendant based s o l e l y assets  also pointed  belonging  t o him,  courts,  by  a process  required  t o do l i k e w i s e :  on e x i s t e n c e  briefly  original  jurisdiction  i n that country  to abolish the  we s h a l l  concurred  practise.  examine,  of  Scots  are  being  " C o m i t y , t h e r e f o r e , ... w o u l d seem t o be a g a i n s t a M a r e v a i n j u n c t i o n a s a p r o c e d u r a l d e v i c e . . . t o a d j u d i c a t e on the m e r i t s i n a c t i o n s a g a i n s t f o r e i g n defendants not o r d i n a r i l y resident i n E n g l a n d , b u t p o s s e s s e d o f some a s s e t s here."108  The other the to  Scots  practice,  European procedures r e f e r r e d t o ,  proceed against  plaintiff  fundandum hands  value, action, is  of a t h i r d  whether  or  belonging  otherwise  to  procedure,  jurisdictionem,  jurisdiction  "The a r r e s t o f m o v e a b l e s by  gives  The  to  jurisdiction  a n a b s e n t d e f e n d a n t by t a k i n g  jurisdiction 1 09 personam over a d e f e n d a n t . "  the  i s generally tied  concept of p r o v i d i n g the n a t i o n a l court with  over h i s c h a t t e l s then present. a  a s w i t h German a n d  permits  a  Scottish  court  known a s a r r e s t m e n t a plaintiff  p a r t y moveable p r o p e r t y  not connected with  the  to arrest of  in  ad in  commercial  subject  of  the  o r owed t o t h e d e f e n d a n t i f t h e d e f e n d a n t  beyond t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n 41  of the S c o t t i s h  court.  It  is  apparently  a good ground  a c t i o n s f o r d e b t o r damages and by  itself  to property  of  jurisdiction  only  gives to a p l a i n t i f f 11 0  no  in  right  attached.  "The e f f e c t o f t h e a r r e s t m e n t i s t o render the s u b j e c t a r r e s t e d ..litigious', s o t h a t i t i s an o f f e n s e f o r t h e t h i r d p a r t y t o s e l l o r o t h e r w i s e d i s p o s e of t h e p r o p e r t y o r pay o r d e l i v e r i t t o the debtor."111  As  soon however,  as  the  ance, the a r r e s t ceases  f o r e i g n defendant enters  an  appear-  and.  "...the a r r e s t e e i s not l o n g e r . . . under any o b l i g a t i o n t o r e t a i n i n h i s h a n d s the moveables which (the order) a f f e c t e d .... I t does not a t t a c h to the p r o p e r t y i t s e l f and s e r v e s p r i m a r i l y a s n o t i c e . " 1 1 2  It successful  in  an  principal  cause  property  initially  same  House  importation "for  in  order  to secure  and  The  as  any  procedure,  be  well  as  his  interest  in  the  i n a S c o t t i s h appeal i n 1975 as 11 3 jurisdiction, was a p p a r e n t l y o r i g i n a l l y  an  Lords  from  It  detained.  Holland  to provide  of  expediency  is  supplementary to  attachment under the Debtors poinding  "furthcoming"  to.  the  reasons 114  trade."  a c t i o n of  f o r the pursuer  d e s c r i b e d by  of  "exorbitant"  i s necessary  inhibition.  and  an the  exceptional  remedy  encouragement  traditional  (Scotland) Act,  1838,  an  forms known  of of as  I t i s seen t h a t S c o t t i s h procedure 42  does not  extend  t o t h e c l a i m s o f t h e M a r e v a and  may  s o o n become e x t i n c t a s  into  i t s E.E.C. c o m m i t m e n t s .  (C)  Lord  Denning's i n i t i a l  and  German c i v i l  property of  was  law  base,  of t h e i r debtors  solely,  until  fully  French  law,  with  authorizes creditors  when s p e e d i s i m p o r t a n t  endangered.  Relief  t h e a t t a c h m e n t known a s  of a  saisie  The  f o r e i g n attachment,  most e x t e n s i v e o f i t provides  and  payment  provisional  an  the  one  would  forms of  pre-  i d e a l model f o r  the  injunction. Available  Quebec  Code  enables area  attach  a restrictive remedy a v a i l a b l e only in 11 5 cases b u t i t h a s s i n c e b e e n b r o a d e n e d somewhat  d e s c r i b e as d e b t .  Mareva  to  conservatoire  i n c l u d e a l l c a s e s w h i c h i n t h e common l a w w o r l d 11 6  trial  i t s Roman  1955  commercial  of  in  a s i m i l a r way 11 7  C i v i l Procedure,  a plaintiff  to apply  this  assets are present, for  property  until  claim.  ex p a r t e  a provisional the  order  c o u r t has  Petitioning  under  heard  r e s i d e n t or  i f r e q u i r e d by preventing and  43  in  in the  rule the which  circum-  disposition  decided  f o r s u c h an o r d e r ,  the  procedural  t o a judge of the c o u r t  i n which a defendant i s normally  stances,  the  enters  custom i n France appears c l o s e s t t o  intention.  the debt i s c l e a r l y  nature  his  Kingdom  event,  ELSEWHERE IN EUROPE  The  to  the U n i t e d  i n any  of  the m e r i t s  the p l a i n t i f f  of  must  describe  why  attachment i s the  required,  property  description  of  affirmations  that h i s claim i s well-founded  action  i s essential 11 8 judgment.  to  to  provide  ensure  be  may  secure  its  granting  security  him.  registered authority business  to  judgment i s r e c o v e r e d .  operate  as  a pre-judgment  possession  of p r o p e r t y does not  Attachment  by  property  may  saise  of  the  debtor  by  be  of  giving recovered  i f the debtor  a l s o get  to r e g i s t e r a temporary f i l i n g until  speedy  the  or  j u d g m e n t w h i c h may  a plaintiff  that  payment  court  In commercial matters,  merchant,  give  c o n t e s t i n g the merits  judge of the  f o r p a y m e n t o f any 119  against  appear  a  and  specific and  i s obtained,  i t s c a n c e l l a t i o n o n l y by before  attached  eventual  Once t h e o r d e r  a  is  a  the  court's  a g a i n s t the  debtor's  This l a t t e r lien  or  change i n the  c o n s e r v a t o i r e does not  step  would  notice  as 1 20  procedure. apply  to  real  assets. It  i s not  a requirement  t h a t the  debtor  be  foreign; i n f a c t , two f u r t h e r f o r m s o f a t t a c h m e n t , saisie 1 21 arret, a p r a c t i c e a k i n t o o u r g a r n i s h m e n t p r o c e e d i n g s , and 1 22 saisie  foraine  specifically who lives  are a l s o a v a i l a b l e . designed  i s described  l a s t mentioned i s  to a t t a c h p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y of  have n e i t h e r d o m i c i l e nor and  The  r e s i d e n c e where  the  as  "a v e r y e x p e d i t i o u s p r o c e d u r e . . . , p r i m a r i l y intended to p r o t e c t merchants 44  debtors creditor  who g i v e c r e d i t t o t r a v e l l i n g s a l e s m e n and o t h e r p e r s o n s s p e n d i n g v e r y l i t t l e t i m e i n one p l a c e . " 1 2 3  Saisie conservatoire, c u s t o m , was b r o u g h t hardship; quickly, from  like  about  f o r commercial  London  to prevent  i t i s secured  very  i n o r d e r t o p r e s e r v e a s s e t s and t o p r e v e n t a d e b t o r  frustrating  t h e ends o f j u s t i c e .  The  not found  Mareva p r a c t i c e and a r e n o t e x t e n s i v e l y  German p r a c t i c e , E.E.C. p a r t i c i p a n t s , d o e s n o t a p p e a r upon e x c e p t  same  early  purposes,  t h e Mareva i n j u n c t i o n ,  p r a c t i c e s g e n e r a l l y have impediments  thus  like  i n the case of absconding  be e q u a t e d t o t h e C a n a d i a n 1 24 purpose.  affidavits,  a local  On  European  i n the current  used.  criticised  by t h e o t h e r  t o be e x t e n s i v e l y  called  f o r e i g n d e b t o r s and c a n  l e g i s l a t i o n designed  application,  creditor  other  supported  i s entitled  f o rthe  by  t o an i n t e r i m  sworn order  i  in  t h e nature' o f an i n j u n c t i o n e i t h e r  to arrest assets of the  debtor or "to p r e v e n t a change o f e x i s t i n g c o n d i t i o n s w h i c h may r e n d e r i m p o s s i b l e o r s u b s t a n t i a l l y more d i f f i c u l t the r e a l i s a t i o n of ( h i s ) rights. "125 126 The  p r o c e s s i s known a s " E i n s t w e i l i g e  Verfugung".  S a i d t o be o f g r e a t p r a c t i c a l in  dealing  importance  w i t h f o r e i g n e r s a n d "among t h e b e s t f e a t u r e s  of  1 27 German  civil  creditor  procedure,"  the r e l i e f  to obtain security  lawsuit  i s pending,  available  and  i s to  enable  the  f o r h i s contested claim while even  before  i t starts  a  and i s  i f the creditor  "can e s t a b l i s h f a c t s which l e a d t o the a s s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e d e b t o r , b e f o r e t h e enforcement o f any judgment a g a i n s t him i s p o s s i b l e , w i l l take steps which w i l l render the e n f o r c e m e n t o f judgment subs t a n t i a l l y more d i f f i c u l t o r e v e n impossible."128  In procedure 1 29  enabling  belag,  appear  tional  provisional  attachment,  more r e s t r i c t i v e ,  a r e suspect i n t h e i r  E.E.C. C o n v e n t i o n o f " 1 9 6 8  (D)  conservatoir  are reserved f o r  excep-  one c u r r e n t  f u t u r e c o n t i n u a t i o n because 1 30 e a r l i e r mentioned.  of  I N AMERICA  A ported  theEnglish  practice "acted  fell  large  custom  number o f A m e r i c a n  o f t h e London c o u r t s  o n b y a number o f t h e c o l o n i e s b e c a u s e  imprisonment |  s o v e r e i g n  While  spread over a  46  l a r g e  at will  among 131  t e r r i t o r y , "  imthat  i t was  i tsuited  c r e d i t s economy a n d o f a p e o p l e ,  f o r d e b t , who t r a v e l l e d  states  states before  i n t o d i s r e p u t e a n d was a b a n d o n e d .  needs o f an expanding to  the rules of c i v i l  c i r c u m s t a n c e s and i n t h e view o f a t l e a s t  writer, the  the Netherlands,  the  averse limited the pre-  trial  attachment  neighbours since  to  processes  the s o u t h have s u f f e r e d a  enactment  Constitution,  of  the Fourteenth  related  t o due  The period state of  from  1969  t o 1975  seaboard  failure  to  the  62.  Procedure  permits  a  of  still  exist,  existing  primarily  they a l s o remain  in  on  modified  Georgia.  p r a c t i s e r u l e s of will  the  New  plaintiff  a l l o w an York  to  a s s e t s found  New  York  instance for  Code  of  Civil  an  ex  parte  bring  a p p l i c a t i o n a t t h e commencement o f an a c t i o n of a debtor's  the  foreign  o f t e n t h e most c r i t i c i s e d , Article  of  in  S e v e r a l models of  form,  civil  comparison. 132  U.S.  hearing  claim.  although  The  attachment  history  t o p r o v i d e an e a r l y  m e a s u r e i n W i s c o n s i n , L o u i s i a n a and  State,  Amendment  our  process.  i n much r e v i s e d  Atlantic  checkered  s t r u c k down a number  an a t t a c h i n g p l a i n t i f f ' s  the  of  U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t  statutes for their  attachment,  used i n j u r i s d i c t i o n s  f o r an o r d e r  w i t h i n the  of  jurisidic-  t i o n of the s t a t e , i f : (a)  the defendant  corporation,  organised  business within, (b)  a  i s an  defendant  his intention  outside  non-resident  the  state  or  and  foreign  not  doing  or who  remove h i s a s s e t s f r o m of  individual  i s d o m i c i l e d i n New the j u r i s d i c t i o n  to defraud 133 bering his property.  York  i s about  or there i s  c r e d i t o r s by  to  evidence  a s s i g n i n g or  encum-  Commentary it  is  both a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l  primarily  at  frustrate in  and  the enforcement  basis  only,  dissimilar altered secured  to  i n 1977  be  a s e r i e s of  perfecting I t was  to  rendered pro-  temporary  steps,  most  not  recently  a s a r e s u l t o f a p p e a l c o u r t d e c i s i o n s and  ex p a r t e ,  s u c h o r d e r s m u s t now  n o t i c e to the defendant, The  evidence  probable  directed  attempt  t o t h e c o u r t , on a  the S c o t t i s h d e v i c e .  c o u r t , w i t h due  provide  o t h e r s who  plain  I t i s i n the nature of  jurisdiction  requiring  and  o f a j u d g m e n t t h a t may 134  favour of the p l a i n t i f f . q u a s i i n rem  t h e R u l e s makes i t  a security device  f o r e i g n defendants  viding  The  on  under  t h a t he w i l l  plaintiff new  succeed  b u r d e n on a p l a i n t i f f  has  Rule on  be  c o n f i r m e d by  within  five  the  days.  i n a p p l y i n g by m o t i o n 6212  i f  t o show t h a t  must  " i t is 1 35  the m e r i t s of h i s case."  been d e s c r i b e d as  being:  " . . . g r e a t e r t h a n a p r i m a f a c i e c a s e and means i n r e a l i t y d e m o n s t r a t i n g e i t h e r a c o m b i n a t i o n o f p r o b a b l e s u c c e s s and t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of i r r e p a r a b l e i n j u r y , or ...very s e r i o u s questions going to the m e r i t s and t h a t t h e b a l a n c e o f h a r d s h i p s (leans) sharply i n (the p l a i n t i f f ' s ) favor."136  The continuing  further  same New  restrictions  York on  commentator  the a v a i l a b i l i t y  interlocutory  remedy i n t h e f a c e o f a d d i t i o n a l  challenges.  While  codifies  one  might argue  of  the  constitutional  t h a t American  i n m a j o r m e a s u r e some o f t h e same c o u r s e s 48  expects  procedure open  to  Canadian l i t i g a n t s lation,  t h e New  country  debtor  York example does extend,  burden of proof, this  under absconding  s t a t u t o r y and  and  in  Europe p r i o r  the  Y o r k D o m e s t i c R e l a t i o n s Law to l e g i s l a t i o n  rapidly  spreading  now  the  earlier  presently being  dismantled  American tionally  equivalents and  suffering  questionable, the  the  practical  British  Continent  now  their  f a r more t h a n a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l ,  i t s use  are  d a r i n g and  i n E n g l i s h and quasi  i s a s u b s t a n t i v e new still  time  as  constitu-  year.  With  resur-  is  on  currently  same  attack  laws  Commonwealth c o u s i n s h a v e  come t o be  it,  the  was  logic,  has  see  clear  legal  it  now  137  that  are  soundness t o t h e i r  the p r a c t i c e w i t h remarkable  we  at  and  by  and  attachment  d i l u t i o n year.by  rected  accepted  the  Columbia  reasons,  in  broadly  would appear  are under s u s t a i n e d  even f a u l t y , and  i t  member n a t i o n s  judicial  of  provinces.  E n g l i s h custom of f o r e i g n  on  weighty  arrival  in British  conclusion,  i n p l a c e i n E.E.C.  a  under a u t h o r i t y  in effect  a b a n d o n e d f o r c o m m e r c i a l and  by  legis-  actions i s permitted  t o m o s t o t h e r common l a w  In that  albeit  to the  Sequestration i n matrimonial  similar  related  procedural rules available  Mareva. New  and  success.  Canadian c o u r t s , i t i n rem  r e m e d y and  d e v i c e but  49  as  restrictions  o n l y s l o w l y b e i n g d i s c o v e r e d and  place.  As  put  in  FOOTNOTES CHAPTER I V 89.  Rasu M a r i t i m e  90.  Ibid,  91.  Bohun, W. P r i v i l e g i a Londini. 3 r d e d . , 1723. I t i s considered t o be t h e c l a s s i c t e x t t r e a t m e n t of the Customs o f London.  92.  Pulling, ulations  93.  Ibid,  94.  L e v y , s u p r a , f n 4 6 , a t p. 4 0 5 , p r o b a b l y thorough accounts presently available custom.  94a.  See s u p r a , C h a p t e r  95.  P r o b a b l y e v e n t o Magna C h a r t a . See C h a p t e r I X t h e r e o f guaranteeing t h e l i b e r t i e s and customs o f t h e C i t y of London.  96.  Levy,  97.  ( 1 7 2 5 ) 12 Geo. 1, c . 2 9 ; ( 1 7 3 2 ) 5 Geo. 2, c. 27 a n d ( 1 8 3 2 ) 2 W i l l . 4, c . 3 9 , i n t e r a l i a .  98.  S e e t h e Common Law P r o c e d u r e A c t s o f 1852 a n d 1 8 5 4 , 15 & 16 V i c t . , c . 76 a n d 17 & 18 V i c t . , c . 1 2 5 .  99.  See s u p r a ,  100.  S.A. v . P e r u s a h a a n e t a l , s u p r a , f n 6 6 .  a t p. 331  (A.E.R.)  A l e x a n d e r . The L a w s , C u s t o m s , U s a g e s a n d R e g o f t h e C i t y a n d P o r t o f L o n d o n . 2nd e d . , 1 8 5 4 .  f n 8 9 , a t p. 331  supra,  (A.E.R.) one o f t h e m o s t of the early  I I ( C ) , pp. 16-17.  f n 4 6 , a t p. 4 2 5 .  f n 47.  Ibid.  101.  25 H a l s b u r y ' s 1 081 .  102.  Both R. Morris i n h i s very thorough study of the English p r a c t i c e i n S e l e c t Cases o f t h e Mayor's Court o f New Y o r k C i t y ( 1 6 7 4 - 1 8 7 4 ) , p u b l i s h e d i n 1 9 3 5 , a t p. 61 and Levy, supra, a t p. 424 come to this same conclusion.  103.  Levy,  104.  Rasu M a r i t i m e , 332.  supra,  Laws o f E n g l a n d .  3rd ed.,  1958,  para.  f n 4 6 , a t p. 4 2 6 . supra,  50  f n 66,  p e r L o r d D e n n i n g a t o.  105.  THE S I S K I N A , s u p r a , f n 6 4 , a t p. 8 1 3 .  106.  Ibid,  107.  a t p. 81 4.  Ibid, in Diplock.  the  House o f L o r d s ,  a t p.  826  per  Lord  108.  Ibid,  a t p. 827.  109.  Walker, D a v i d M. P r i n c i p l e s o f S c o t t i s h P r i v a t e Law. 3rd e d . O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n P r e s s , 1982. A t p. 152.  110.  C o r r e l , J . W. a n d M e r r y , E. W. P r i n c i p l e s a n d P r a c t i c e o f S c o t s Law. L o n d o n : B u t t e r w o r t h s , 1 9 7 1 . A t p . 2 3 2 .  111.  Ibid.  112.  N o r t h v . S t e w a r t ( 1 8 9 0 ) 17 R. (HL) 6 0 , p e r L o r d W a t s o n a t p. 63. A l s o s e e C r a i g v . B r u n s g a a r d , K j o s t e r u d &^ Co. ( 1 8 9 6 ) 23 R. 5 0 0 , p e r L o r d M ' L a r e n a t p. 5 0 3 .  113.  A l e x a n d e r Ward £ Co. L t d . v . Samyang N a v i g a t i o n Co. Ltd. [ 1 9 7 5 ] 2 A l l E.R. 4 2 4 , p e r L o r d K i l b r a n d o n a t p. 435.  114.  Ibid,  115.  per Lord Hailsham  a t p. 4 2 9 .  Code o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e , A r t i c l e 48. F o r good r e v i e w * o f t h e p r a c t i c e , see Herzog, P e t e r . C i v i l Procedure i n France. Volume 3 o f t h e C o l u m b i a U n i v e r s i t y S c h o o l of Law Project on I n t e r n a t i o n a l P r o c e d u r e . The Hague: M a r t i n u s N i j h o f f , 1 9 6 7 . A t p. 1 9 8 .  116.  Ibid,  a t p. 2 3 5 .  117.  Code o f C i v i l  118.  Herzog,  s u p r a , f n 1 1 5 , a t p. 2 3 6 .  119.  Article  50 o f t h e C o d e o f C i v i l  120.  A r t i c l e 53 o f t h e C o d e ; s e e a l s o H e r z o g , a t p. 2 3 7 .  121.  Article  122.  Articles  123.  Herzog,  124.  German Code o f C i v i l  125.  Cohn, E . J . M a n u a l o f German Law. V o l u m e 2. L o n d o n : E a s t e r n P r e s s , 1 9 7 1 . A t p. 2 4 3 .  54  Procedure  o f Quebec, A r t i c l e s  733 f f .  Procedure.  o f t h e Code o f C i v i l  s u p r a , f n 115,  Procedure.  8 2 2 - 5 o f t h e Code o f C i v i l  Procedure.  s u p r a , f n 1 1 5 , a t p. 2 3 7 . Procedure  51  (ZPO),  s . 916 f f .  126.  German Code o f C i v i l  P r o c e d u r e , s. 936.  127.  C o h n , s u p r a , f n 1 2 5 , p. 2 4 3 .  128.  Ibid,  129.  Rules of Dutch C i v i l  130.  Stein, P.A. Introduction t o D u t c h Law f o r Foreign Lawyers. Edited by D.C. Fokkema e t a l f o r t h e Netherland's C o m p a r a t i v e Law Association. Deventis: K l u w e r , 1 9 7 8 . A t p. 2 5 9 .  131.  L e v y , s u p r a , f n 4 6 , a t p. 4 0 1 .  132.  McKinney's Consolidated Laws o f New Y o r k Book 7 B on C i v i l P r a c t i s e Law a n d R u l e s . 1 980.  Annotated. » New York,  133.  See a l s o comments o f H o d g e k i s s , C.C. A . L . J . 310 a t p. 313 o n t h i s t o p i c .  (1982)  134.  McKinney's,  135.  I b i d , R u l e 6212.  136.  D o n n e l l y , S.J.M. " C o m m e r c i a l Law 1977 R e v i e w " 29 S y r a c u s e Law R e v i e w 3 2 7 , a t p. 3 7 2 .  137.  U n d e r s s . 233 a n d 243 o f t h e New York Domestic R e l a t i o n s Law; a l s o s e e C.P.L.R. 6201 a n d c o m p a r e w i t h f n 27, s u p r a .  a t p. 244. Procedure  (J3.Rv.), A r t i c l e s  in  121 it.  56  s u p r a , f n 132.  52  (1978)  CHAPTER V - J U R I S D I C T I O N  (A)  STATUTORY B A S I S  While provisional of  the  the  discarded  attachment as a b a s i s  for  practices  court  was o n f i r m e r  jurisdiction.  ground with  of  implementation  M a r e v a p r i n c i p l e may n o t h a v e b e e n w h o l l y  English  utory is  foreign  adopting  the  rational, 1925  stat-  As l a t e r c a s e s h a v e shown, t h e d o c t r i n e  n o t an a t t a c h m e n t p r o c e s s a t a l l b u t a p r o h i b i t o r y  order  d e s i g n e d t o m a i n t a i n t h e l e g a l p o s i t i o n o f p a r t i e s engaged i n ;  litigation. against  Viewed from t h a t  i t s shaky e a r l y  perspective,  the alarum  foundation i s less  disturbing.  R e c e n t l y , perhaps f o r greater the  United  Supreme directly:  Kingdom P a r l i a m e n t e n a c t e d s e c t i o n  Court  Act,  1981,  which deals with  raised  certainty,  37(3) of the  the  principle  j  "The p o w e r o f t h e H i g h C o u r t . . . t o g r a n t an i n t e r l o c u t o r y i n j u n c t i o n r e s t r a i n i n g a p a r t y t o any p r o c e e d i n g s from r e m o v i n g from t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e High Court,or otherwise dealing with, assets located w i t h i n t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n s h a l l be e x e r c i s a b l e i n c a s e s where t h a t p a r t y i s , as w e l l a s c a s e s w h e r e he i s n o t , d o m i c i l e d , resident or present within that jurisdiction."138  The by  l e g i s l a t i o n was e f f e c t i v e f r o m J a n u a r y 1, 1982 a n d entrenched Lord Denning's  53  invention.  there-  Neither authorities  have y e t adopted  clarification  or  cases,  jurisdiction  legal  encompassed 1 39 Act,  by  Court  As  course of  i n early  statutory  United  f o rthe process i s  statute.  of  n o r o t h e r Commonwealth  the B r i t i s h  amendment.  the B r i t i s h  Supreme  Canadian  only  S e c t i o n 36 o f t h e Law a n d  Columbia  equivalent to section  Judicature  Kingdom broadly Equity  45 o f t h e  (Consolidation) Act  (U.K.),  provides: "36. A mandamus o r a n i n j u n c t i o n may be granted or a receiver-manager appointed by a n i n t e r l o c u t o r y o r d e r o f t h e C o u r t i n a l l cases i n which i t appears t o t h e Court t o be j u s t o r c o n v e n i e n t t h a t t h e o r d e r s h o u l d be made a n d t h e o r d e r may be made e i t h e r u n c o n d i t i o n a l l y o r on terms and c o n d i t i o n s the Court t h i n k s j u s t . I f an i n j u n c t i o n i s asked e i t h e r before, a t o r a f t e r t h e h e a r i n g o f any cause o r m a t t e r , to p r e v e n t any t h r e a t e n e d o r apprehended w a s t e o r t r e s p a s s , t h e i n j u n c t i o n may b e granted i f t h e Court t h i n k s f i t , whether t h e p e r s o n a g a i n s t whom t h e i n j u n c t i o n i s sought i s o r i s n o t i n p o s s e s s i o n under any claim or t i t l e o r otherwise o r , i fout of p o s s e s s i o n , does o r does n o t c l a i m a r i g h t t o do t h e a c t sought t o be r e s t r a i n e d under any c o l o u r o f t i t l e , a n d w h e t h e r t h e e s t a t e s c l a i m e d by b o t h o r by e i t h e r o f t h e p a r t i e s are l e g a l o r e q u i t a b l e . " [ u n d e r l i n i n g mine]  In  addition to inherent j u r i s d i c t i o n of  t h e Supreme C o u r t o f B r i t i s h jurisdiction... \and \  (with)  Columbia  complete  as a " c o u r t o f o r i g i n a l  cognisance  of  a l l pleas  ... j u r i s d i c t i o n i n a l l cases, civil and c r i m i n a l 140 141 the Rules of Court provide f o rthe granting of  interlocutory  injunctions  i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s encompassing  the  Mareva r e l i e f . to  Rules  a l l injunctions,  44 a n d 45 c o n t a i n d i r e c t i o n s permanent,  p a r t e o r c o n t e s t e d , and t h e i r  interim,  provisions  t h e M a r e v a s i t u a t i o n a s we s h a l l  In  1979,  Mr.  Court  relied  Act.  Nippon  ish  Justice  business  Manousakis  Yusen K a i s h a v. K a r a g e o r g i s ,  a  husband  pending  the  their  Equity Appendix  o f t h e County  Courts i n  t o g r a n t Mareva r e l i e f 144 Courts Act  t h e same j u r i s d i c t i o n  I I I contains a l i s t i n g  yet  unreported  a to  British  under  sec-  i n actions  com-  11(2)  of  of the  u n d e r t h e Law a n d Court  judges.  o f example c a s e s where  t h e s e c o u r t s have g r a n t e d Mareva i n j u n c t i o n s  judges in  as  decisions. The . P r o v i n c i a l C o u r t o f B r i t i s h  has  in  law l e g i s l a t i o n .  A c t a n d t h e R u l e s o f C o u r t a s Supreme  both  shares  c o u r t s and w h i l e a c t i n g as L o c a l Judges  Court Act  of  Brit-  entitlement  Supreme C o u r t , h a v e by v i r t u e o f s e c t i o n 145  Supreme  Equity  as s u p p o r t f o r an o r d e r  determination of a wife's  have j u r i s d i c t i o n  in  Supreme  the f i r s t  from d i s p o s i n g o f h i s  21 a n d 39 o f t h e C o u n t y  menced  Columbia  o n t h e b r o a d p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e Law a n d 1 43  Judges  tions  apply to  case to 1 42 v. Manousakis in  Trainor of the B r i t i s h  share i n t h e i r v a l u e under f a m i l y  Columbia  i n entirety  ex  r e p o r t e d Canadian  a p p e l l a t e d e c i s i o n , was a l s o u s e d  prohibiting  interlocutory,  l a t e r see.  the f i r s t  e x e r c i s e Mareva j u r i s d i c t i o n ,  applicable  no s u c h j u r i s d i c t i o n .  i  Columbia  In similar  1 46  ritories. level that  Ontario,  as a r e those  the  enabling  i n the remaining  statute  provinces  and  i s ter-  I n t h e f o u r c a s e s w h i c h have r e a c h e d t h e a p p e l l a t e  i n this  country,  jurisdiction  Mareva r e l i e f  of  t h e c o u r t s have provincial  i sclear.  consistently  superior courts  to 1 47  I n Humphries v. B u r a g l i a ,  Brunswick Court of Appeal  ruled grant  t h e New  said:  .... t h e C o u r t s of t h i s P r o v i n c e have j u r i s d i c t i o n i n a p r o p e r c a s e ( u n d e r s e c t i o n 33 o f t h e J u d i c a t u r e A c t R.S.N.B. 1 9 7 3 , c . J - 2 ) t o g r a n t an i n t e r l o c u t o r y judgment so as to prevent the defendant d i s p o s i n g of a s s e t s w h i c h o t h e r w i s e m i g h t be a v a i l a b l e t o s a t i s f y a judgment o b t a i n e d by the p l a i n t i f f . " 1 4 8  Last winter,  appeal  courts  i n Manitoba,  Columbia  acted . s i m i l a r l y .  Financial  S e r v i c e s L t d . e t a_l,  majority  I n Feigelman 1 49  i n the Manitoba court  Ontario et  and B r i t i s h  a_l v .  Matas J.A. speaking  Aetna  f o r the  declared:  " S e c t i o n 5 9 ( 1 ) o f t h e Queen's Bench A c t , R.S.M. 1 9 7 0 , c . C 2 8 0 , i s t h e basis of the court's authority to issue ( a M a r e v a ) . . . i n j u n c t i o n . " 1 50  T h r e e weeks l a t e r , of Appeal,  M a c K i n n o n A.C.J.O.  said i n Chitel  f o r the Ontario 151 e t a l v. Rothbart e t a l :  " . . . i n my v i e w , . . . i t i s a l e g i t i m a t e exercise of the d i s c r e t i o n given a court under s e c t i o n 19(1) o f t h e J u d i c a t u r e A c t , R.S.O. 1 9 8 0 , t o g r a n t a M a r e v a injunction."152 56  Court  and a g a i n :  "The M a r e v a i n j u n c t i o n i s h e r e a n d h e r e t o s t a y and p r o p e r l y so...."153  The  British  opportunity  Columbia  of  Appeal  had  i t s  first  Kaisha  v.  weeks' t i m e i n S e k i s u i House Kabushi 1 54 Nagashima e t a l when C h i e f J u s t i c e Nemetz o n  behalf  of  t h e t h r e e man c o r a m c o n f i r m e d  section  36  injunction.  in  Court  two  of 155  the  B.C.  As  statute  earlier  mentioned,  having  limited  section  44 o f t h e F e d e r a l C o u r t A c t : "44.  original  authority  f o r issuing  t h e F e d e r a l C o u r t o f Canada as an o r i g i n a l 157 but  the  powers,  a  of  Mareva  jurisdiction  of 1 56  court of record i s derived  from  I n a d d i t i o n t o any o t h e r r e l i e f t h a t t h e C o u r t may g r a n t o r a w a r d , a mandamus, i n j u n c t i o n o r o r d e r f o r s p e c i f i c p e r f o r m a n c e may be g r a n t e d o r a r e c e i v e r a p p o i n t e d by_ t h e C o u r t i n a l l cases i n which i t appears t o t h e C o u r t t o be j u s t a n d c o n v e n i e n t t o d o s o , a n d a n y s u c h o r d e r may be made e i t h e r u n c o n d i t i o n a l l y o r upon such terms and c o n d i t i o n s . . . . " [ u n d e r l i n i n g mine]  I n m a t t e r s p u r e l y m a r i t i m e , t h e combined effect of section claim  for relief  includes pyament  22 o f t h e s t a t u t e i s made...") a n d  2(m)  ("relief  by way o f  damages,  i n j u n c t i o n . . . . " ) c o u l d a l s o be  utilized  every species of r e l i e f of  money,  ( " i n a l l cases i n which a  57  section  whether  although broad  t h a t would  language  p r o b a b l y be u n n e c e s s a r y 158 o f s e c t i o n 44.  of  the  of the Federal Court 1 59 Mareva i n j u n c t i o n s t o t h i s d a t e appear  who  Those  have  granted  have  relied 1 60  upon s e c t i o n  Court. effect  Rules to  Supreme  i n light  judges  44 o f t h e s t a t u t e a n d t h e R u l e s  469 a n d 470 a r e s u b s t a n t i a l l y  provisions  referred  to i n  the  British  Court Rules concerning i n t e r l o c u t o r y  i n j u n c t i o n s and p r e s e r v a t i o n o f p r o p e r t y . particular  however,  locutory  orders  o n l y by way o f i n t e r i m  of in  Columbia  orders both f o r  I n one  as r e g a r d s ex p a r t e Mareva  judges of the F e d e r a l Court are r e s t r i c t e d  similar  to  important  injunctions,  to granting injunction  inter"for a  p e t i o d n o t e x c e e d i n g t e n d a y s " when n o t i c e o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n 1 61 has  not  been  given to the  •Supreme  Court would  ex p a r t e  applications.  (B)  not appear  argument  raised  provincial  t o have such r e s t r i c t i o n s  on  e x i s t e n c e of attachment  r e m e d i e s , as  against  by e a r l y  i m p o r t a t i o n o f t h e Mareva principle 1 62 commentators, does n o t a f f e c t t h e c o u r t s '  readiness to u t i l i z e ,B.P.  The  EFFECT OF OTHER REMEDIES  The an  defendant.  Mareva.  E x p l o r a t i o n Company  ( a s he t h e n w a s ) i n 1 63 ( L i b y a ) L i m i t e d v . Hunt said:  i 58  Tallis  J.  "... l e a r n e d c o u n s e l a l s o s u b m i t t e d t h a t t h e r e are r u l e s of c o u r t d e a l i n g w i t h a b s c o n d i n g d e b t o r s and a c c o r d i n g l y an e q u i t a b l e o r d e r s h o u l d n o t be i s s u e d which i s i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h such p r o v i s i o n s . The r u l e s o f c o u r t i n t h i s j u r i s d i c t i o n d e a l i n g w i t h absconding debtors are not i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f s o u g h t . . . . I n my o p i n i o n s u c h p r o v i s i o n s do n o t d e p r i v e t h i s C o u r t o f g r a n t i n g a Mareva type i n j u n c t i o n i n t h i s j u r i s d i c t i o n . " ! 64  And  i n the Manitoba case,  M a t a s J.A.  added:  "If a claimant... could bring his claim w i t h i n the e s t a b l i s h e d procedures under e i t h e r the Queen s Bench R u l e s or the F r a u d u l e n t Conveyances A c t , i t would n o t be n e c e s s a r y t o i n v o k e t h e M a r e v a injunction. I n my v i e w , t h e e x i s t e n c e o f these p r o v i s i o n s does not p r e c l u d e the i s s u a n c e of a Mareva i n j u n c t i o n i n t h i s jurisdiction."165 1  Huband J.A.,  in dissent,  while  c o u r t s have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o g r a n t do  so  admitting  Mareva o r d e r s ,  i n Feigelman, i n p a r t because of  possible  t h a t the  "The e x i s t e n c e o f r e m e d i e s t h r o u g h t h e Fraudulent Conveyances A c t , prejudgment garnishment proceedings, and o r d e r s o f a t t a c h m e n t d r a w one t o two conclusions: ( 1 ) Where o t h e r s p e c i f i c r e m e d i e s a r e a v a i l a b l e t h o s e r e m e d i e s s h o u l d be t h e f i r s t r e s o r t , and a M a r e v a i n j u n c t i o n s h o u l d n o t be i s s u e d w h e r e o t h e r remedies are a v a i l a b l e , (2) I f t h e o t h e r r e m e d i e s a r e n o t a v a i l a b l e t h e c o u r t s s h o u l d be c a u t i o u s t o f i l l t h e v o i d by a M a r e v a i n j u n c t i o n . " 1 6 6 [ u n d e r l i n i n g mine] 59  declined  the e x i s t e n c e  remedies:  Manitoba  of  to  other  The  other Canadian  additional  jurisdictions  pre-trial  step  have s i m i l a r l y welcomed  despite  available  this  attachment  remedies.  Only  by  the  implementation of p r a c t i c e r u l e s to regulate or entrench 167  the  practise.  New  Brunswick now  Following Civil  40.03,  was  ciple.  Under  Assets  (Mareva  the  put i n p l a c e i n c o r p o r a t i n g the Mareva  prin-  heading  " I n j u n c t i o n For  Injunction)," the  t h e new  rule 168  Preservation codifies  t h e P r o v i n c e o f Nova S c o t i a ,  pro-  a  spe-  t o p e r m i t an e x p a r t e o r d e r  for  i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s where a Mareva might 169 Rule  the  of  principle.  i s available  appropriate.  o t h e r w i s e be  49 o f t h e N o v a S c o t i a C i v i l  Rules  provides that a p l a i n t i f f  prove  the r e q u i r e d  may  i n Humphries,  Rule,  In  attachment  h a s moved  P r o c e d u r e R u l e s w e r e amended a n d a new  the  procedure  Brunswick  the d e c i s i o n  cedure w i t h o u t a l t e r i n g  cific  New  must p o s t a bond as w e l l  f a c t s by a f f i d a v i t ;  a l s o be p o s t e d by a d e f e n d a n t  Procedure  similarly,  as  security  to r e g a i n p o s s e s s i o n of  the  property attached.  (C)  OTHER J U R I S D I C T I O N S  If Commonwealth, jurisdiction  one  one  looks to other reaches  can see t h a t the c o u r t s have based  on e v e n  broader s t a t u t o r y powers.  V of  the  \  their  In thefAus-  \ 60  tralian  states,  i s an e x a m p l e : may  section "The  23 o f t h e Supreme C o u r t A c t  Court  shall  have a l l j u r i s d i c t i o n  be n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f j u s t i c e . "  South  Wales  recently McKay a n d  Court of Appeal  under t h a t a u t h o r i t y 1 70 Another.  (N.S.W.)  approved  the  Mareva  i n R i l e y McKay  Pty.  which  The  New  principle Ltd.  v.  /  1 71 In general  New  Zealand, the s t a t u t e  i s equally  i n i t s scope:  "The C o u r t s h a l l c o n t i n u e t o h a v e a l l t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n w h i c h i t had on t h e c o m i n g i n t o o p e r a t i o n o f t h i s A c t and a l l j u d i c i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n w h i c h may be n e c e s s a r y t o a d m i n i s t e r t h e l a w s o f New Zealand."172 Despite  a  similarly  charging  orders  broad  entitlement  to  pre-judgment  fleeing or absconded 173 debtors u n d e r t h e i r Code o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e , the c o u r t s of 174 New Z e a l a n d h a v e g r a n t e d t h e i n j u n c t i o n s i n c e 1978.  (D)  to a t t a c h assets of  CAUSE OF  ACTION  One courts' House  further  matter  j u r i s d i c t i o n must be r a i s e d .  related  to  the  I t arose i n the  only  of Lord's d e c i s i o n r e v i e w i n g the Mareva p r a c t i c e , 175  SISKINA,  and  Canadian  courts.  has  been quoted  61  with  approbation  in  The the  In that case, on  the owners of cargo  S I S K I N A c l a i m e d damages a g a i n s t t h e  P a n a m a n i a n company. The  vessel  was  T h a t c l a i m was  later  lost  shipowner,  g o v e r n e d by  owners i s s u e d a w r i t  damages  and  an  posing of the and  court  had  injunction restraining  no  the  i n j u n c t i o n on  jurisdiction  to give leave to  ( L o r d D e n n i n g M.R.  Lords.  L.J. 1 76  dissenting)  The was to  not  such  b u t was  court.  Lord  a c a u s e o f a c t i o n as  D i p l o c k , who  r e v e r s e d by and  a majority  the  the  L.J.,  House  of  determined, plaintiffs  of the j u r i s d i c t i o n  of  l e a d i n g speech,  "A r i g h t t o o b t a i n an i n t e r l o c u t o r y i n j u n c t i o n i s not a cause of a c t i o n . I t c a n n o t s t a n d on i t s own. It is d e p e n d a n t on t h e r e b e i n g a p r e e x i s t i n g cause of a c t i o n a r i s i n g out o f an i n v a s i o n , a c t u a l o r t h r e a t e n e d by h i m o f a l e g a l o r e q u i t a b l e r i g h t of the p l a i n t i f f f o r the enforcement of which the defendant i s answerable to the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the c o u r t . The r i g h t t o o b t a i n an i n t e r l o c u t o r y i n j u n c t i o n i s m e r e l y a n c i l l i a r y and i n c i d e n t a l to the p r e - e x i s t i n g cause of action."177  writ  process  Lawton  the Lords  to e n t i t l e  d e l i v e r e d the  62  dis-  English  serve  r e s t o r e d by  claim i t s e l f ,  o b t a i n l e a v e f o r s e r v i c e out  claiming  the ground t h a t the  of  Bridge  Court  a The  Kerr J . set a s i d e the  H i s r u l i n g was  of Appeal  as  the owners from  o u t s i d e the country. the Court  and  law.  London.  i n the E n g l i s h High  insurance proceeds.  discharged  in  one-ship  Italian  i n the Mediterranean  c o n s e q u e n c e i n s u r a n c e m o n i e s became p a y a b l e cargo  a  laden  the said:  The appropriate  injunction  to claims j u s t i c i a b l e  a plaintiff within  Mareva  must c l e a r l y  the  jurisdiction  only  thus  not  i n f o r e i g n c o u r t s and  bring h i s principal of  is  cause of  the court to  which  action  he  makes  application.  The  Federal  Court  o f Canada, i n t h e o n l y 1 78  case  thus  r e p o r t e d o f i t s Mareva e x p e r i e n c e ,  M a r e v a a p p l i c a t i o n when l e a v e t o s e r v e ex  j u r i s was d e n i e d and o t h e r  same  relief  serve  i s n o t f o r m a l l y r e q u i r e d i n many i n s t a n c e s ,  if  and  when  conveniens. to that  satisfy the  principal  provincial  contested, A plaintiff  turned  While counsel i n  that  to  have then  remain  is  an  of necessity w i l l  the court with respect court  successfully  s u p e r i o r c o u r t s where  will  claim against the p a r t i c u l a r  63  to  of  forum  be r e q u i r e d  adjudicate  defendant.  to  the issue,  issue still  f o r the leave  to Lord Diplock's  a l s o competent  a  the Statement of Claim  by t h e c h a m b e r s j u d g e .  cases  dismissed  concern on  the  FOOTNOTES CHAPTER V  138.  Supreme C o u r t A c t ( U . K . ) , J a n u a r y 1, 1 9 8 2 .  1981 c.  54,  i n t o f o r c e on  139.  R.S.B.C. 1 9 7 9 , c . 2 2 4 .  140.  Supreme C o u r t A c t , R.S.B.C. 1 9 7 9 , c . 3 9 7 , s . 8.  141.  Supreme C o u r t R u l e s , 1 9 7 9 , R u l e s  142.  ( 1 9 7 9 ) 10 B.C.L.R. P - 2 1 . (BCSC)  143.  Supra,  144.  R.S.B.C. 1 9 7 9 , c . 7 2 .  145.  Supra,  146.  J u d i c a t u r e A c t , R.S.O. 1 9 8 0 , c . 2 2 3 , s. 19  147.  ( 1 9 8 2 ) 135 D.L.R. A.P.R. 6 7 4 .  148.  Ibid,  149.  [ 1 9 8 3 ] 143 D.L.R. ( 3 d ) 7 1 5 , 2 W.W.R. 9 7 .  150.  Ibid,  151.  ( 1 9 8 3 ) 39 O.R.  152.  Ibid,  a t p. 531.(O.R.)  153.  Ibid,  a t p. 534.(O.R.)  154.  Supra,  155.  Ibid,  156.  F e d e r a l C o u r t A c t , S.C. 1 9 7 0 - 1 9 7 1 , c . 1, s. 3.  157.  Ibid,  s. 17.  158.  Ibid,  s s . 22 a n d 2 ( m ) .  159.  See s u p r a , f n 14 f o r l i s t i n g of F e d e r a l C o u r t o f Canada d e c i s i o n s .  160.  F e d e r a l C o u r t R u l e s , 1971,' SOR/71-68, a s amended.  44 a n d 4 5 .  f n 9.  f n 140.  (3d) 535,  39 N.B.R.  p e r S t r a t t o n J . A . a t p. 547  a t p . 721  (1). ( 2 d ) 6 7 4 , 103  (D.L.R.).  (D.L.R.). ( 2 d ) 5 1 3 , 141 D.L.R. ( 3 d ) 2 6 8 .  f n 16. a t p . 6.  64  some  unreported  161.  R u l e 469  162.  F o r e x a m p l e , s e e S t o c k w o o d , s u p r a , f n 1 1 , a t p.  163.  Supra,  164.  Ibid,  165.  Supra,  166.  I b i d , a t p.  167.  Supra,  168.  See  169.  Rule 49. I t s e x i s t e n c e d i d not prevent the court i n P a r m a r v . P a r c e r i a e t a l ( 1 9 8 2 ) 141 D.L.R. ( 3 d ) 498 ( a t p. 505) f r o m a l l o w i n g t h e M a r e v a o r d e r i n N o v a S c o t i a .  170.  S u p r a , f n 85. Other A u s t r a l i a n c o u r t s have used a similar state statute. Cf. Praznovsky v. S a b l y a c k [ 1 9 7 7 ] V.R. 114, B a r i s i c v . T o p i c and A n o t h e r 37 A.C.T.R. 1 a n d S a n k o S.S. Co. L t d . v . D.C. Commodities (Australia) Property Ltd. [1980] W.A.R. 5 1 , as examples.  171.  The  172.  Ibid, s. 16. (Libya) Limited  173.  Under Rule 19 of t h e New Zealand Code o f Civil P r o c e d u r e , a c r e d i t o r can o b t a i n a c h a r g i n g o r d e r p r i o r t o j u d g m e n t i f he c a n i d e n t i f y t h e a s s e t s o f t h e d e b t o r and i f he c a n show t h a t t h e d e b t o r i s " a b s e n t f r o m New Z e a l a n d o r a b o u t t o q u i t New Z e a l a n d w i t h i n t e n t t o d e feat his creditors." Cf. a r t i c l e by C a t o , C.B. "The Mareva I n j u n c t i o n and I t s A p p l i c a t i o n i n New Zealand" ( 1 9 8 0 ) New Z e a l a n d Law J o u r n a l 270.  174.  From S y s t e m s a n d P r o g r a m m e s (N.Z.) L t d . v . P.R.C. P u b l i c Management S e r v i c e s ( I n c . ) [ 1 9 7 8 ] N.Z. Recent Law 264; a l s o s e e t h e O c t o b e r 1 3 , 1978 u n r e p o r t e d d e c i s i o n o f Mosen v . D o n s e l a a r and t h e H u n t d e c i s i o n , s u p r a , f n 171 .  175.  Supra,  176.  The Court of Appeal d e c i s i o n i s r e p o r t e d beginning at p. 806 ( A l l E.R.) w h i l e t h e H o u s e o f L o r d s ' opinions b e g i n a t p. 821 ( A l l E . R . ) .  fn  (2 ) .  13.  a t p.  58  (D.L.R.).  f n 17, a t p.  fn  97.  722  (D.L.R.).  734. 147.  Appendix  IV f o r f u l l  t e x t o f t h e N.B.  Rule.  J u d i c a t u r e A c t , R.S.N.Z.  fn  See H u n t v . B.P. E x p l o r a t i o n [ 1 9 8 0 ] 1 N.Z.L.R. 104.  Company  64.  65  177.  Ibid,  a t p.  178.  Elseguro 14.  824.  I n c . v.  S s a n g y o n g S h i p p i n g Co.  66  L t d . , supra,  fn  CHAPTER V I - MAREVA G U I D E L I N E S  A.  AMERICAN CYANAMID TEST  As o f no e x e c u t i o n not  be,  and  course.  before in  While  an e x c e p t i o n  heart  demonstration of the r i s k  of  that  removed  from t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n  nullify  the e f f e c t of f i n a l  him  material  in  entitlement  matter  of  plaintiff's  case  is  a  or otherwise disposed  judgment,  As  t h e s e have been r e f e r r e d t o as t h e Mareva  Most has  not  defendant  has  not normally  plaintiff, which  save  by in  suffered  future  actions  any i n j u r y  earlier  mentioned,  Guidelines.  or  timet:  loss  of the former's  I t i s the fear only  that  upon  establish his  and  committed any wrong a g a i n s t  basis  be  so as t o  u s u a l l y t h e non-payment o f a d e b t o r  forms t h e p r i n c i p a l  cause of a c t i o n .  to  applications are quia  plaintiff  will  i t i s incumbent  the court  u n i q u e remedy.  should  g r a n t e d as a  the defendant's assets  f i l e d before  to this  principle  judgment, t h e Mareva i n j u n c t i o n  practice i s not, the  to the general  the the the wrong  substantive  the defendant  will  cause u n f a i r disadvantage t o t h e p l a i n t i f f  p u r s u i t o f h i s l a w f u l c a u s e o f a c t i o n and remedy.  As relief, courts  a  form o f i n t e r l o c u t o r y  t h e Mareva i s s u b j e c t to  to the ordinary  injunctive  approach of the  applications inter partes for prohibitory 1 79 injunctions. I t i s t o be remembered t h a t i t i s a remedy,  not  a  down  cause by  Lord  American this  of a c t i o n Diplock  C y a n a m i d Co.  country  and  i n i t s own  right.  180  i n t h e House o f  The  Lords  rules in  laid  1975  in  v.  Ethicon L t d . , generally accepted i n 181 specifically in this Province, have  clarified  t h e o n u s on an a p p l i c a n t . The O n t a r i o 182 recently however, i n r e f e r r i n g to the  Court  Appeal  subsequent 1 83  d e c i s i o n o f t h e H o u s e o f L o r d s i n N.W.L. has may  expressed the lone view that the American n o t be  suitable  prima  facie  least  satisfy  vexatious; be  language  i n England  case t o e n t i t l e m e n t ,  Early  Canadian  of  claim  despite variance i n  was  tests  i s "not  must a t  a  very  frivolous  or  that there i s a serious question  quirements  appeared  Cyanamid  a plaintiff  trial  judgments  i n denoting the c u r r e n t l y viewed,  but  Woods,  he n e e d n o t e s t a b l i s h  a court that his claim  i n o t h e r words, 1 84  tried."  v.  i n some r e s t r i c t e d c i r c u m s t a n c e s . While  to  Ltd.  of  the a p p l i c a n t to e s t a b l i s h  less  used  stringent re-  validity  adjectival  other  of  description,  his i t  clear  t h a t t h e t e s t b e i n g a p p l i e d by C a n a d i a n c o u r t s 1 85 more l e n i e n t t h a n t h e f o r m e r p r i m a f a c i e c a s e . The  Manitoba  commented on t h e i n t e r c h a n g e a b i l i t y  Court of Appeal of  year  terms:  "The p h r a s e 'good a r g u a b l e c a s e ' was u s e d by M e g a r r y V-C i n B a r c l a y J o h n s o n v . Y u i l l and by D e n n i n g M.R. i n R a s u M a r i t i m e S.A. v . Perusahaan e t a l . . . . L o r d Denning i n ( t h a t c a s e ) s a i d t h a t t h e t e s t was  68  last  \  !,  in conformity with that American Cyanamid....  laid  down i n  In a l a t e r case, Mothercare L t d . v. R o b s o n B o o k s L t d . [ 1 9 7 9 ] F.S.R. 4 6 6 . . . M e g a r r y V-C d i s c u s s e d t h e t e r m s ' f r i v o l o u s and v e x a t i o u s ' ' s e r i o u s q u e s t i o n t o b e t r i e d ' a n d 'a r e a l p r o s p e c t o f succeeding.' M e g a r r y V-C s u g g e s t e d t h a t ' f r i v o l o u s a n d v e x a t i o u s ' s h o u l d be r e a d i n a sense d i f f e r e n t from i t s sense used i n / r e l a t i o n t o s t r i k i n g o u t a c t i o n s and c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e t h r e e terms were t o be c o n s i d e r e d a s e q u i v a l e n t s . " 1 8 6  Remarkably ably,  the phrase  unclear facie  i n "pure" Mareva cases  the Third Chandris decision  more o n e r o u s but  understand-  "a g o o d a r g u a b l e c a s e o n t h e m e r i t s "  w h i c h has a p p e a r e d most o f t e n ing  a l t h o u g h perhaps  burden  i n 1979.  i s one follow-  Whether t h a t  isa  t h a n "a s e r i o u s q u e s t i o n t o be t r i e d "  i ti s substantially  l e s s onerous  than  a  is  prima  case.  Alone however,  the  decisions  in  Canada  a r e t w o o f t h e m o s t a u t h o r i t a t i v e a n d t h e y may  fortell  a sharp s h i f t  seeking  the injunction.  year also  among  i n weight of t h e burden  on a  plaintiff  The M a n i t o b a C o u r t o f A p p e a l  said:  " I n M a n i t o b a , t h i s c o u r t has h e l d , ( d e s p i t e the American Cyanamid d e c i s i o n ) t h a t g e n e r a l l y the t e s t of a prima f a c i e case s h o u l d c o n t i n u e t o be a p p l i e d on a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r an i n t e r l o c u t o r y i n j u n c t i o n . I would n o t a p p l y any l e s s e r t e s t t o a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r a Mareva i n j u n c t i o n . " 1 8 7  69  well  last  And  t h e O n t a r i o C o u r t o f A p p e a l has  also varied  Cyanamid  and E n g l i s h Mareva t e s t s and w i l l  Province  require  c a s e on t h e  the p l a i n t i f f  the  at least  to e s t a b l i s h a  American in  that  prima  facie  merits:  " . . . t h e m a t e r i a l . . . m u s t be s u c h . . . a s persuades the c o u r t that the p l a i n t i f f h a s a s t r o n g p r i m a f a c i e c a s e on i t s merits."188  While  other t r i a l  C a n a d a h a v e n o t gone t h a t f a r , t h e s e two d e c i s i o n s and  Ontario,  as  declining  as  being  British for  First,  to f u l l y  Columbia  o r New  t h e new  Brunswick  is  not  for  gone on  record  Cyanamid  tests  true  in  t h e Supreme C o u r t o f Canada o t h e r w i s e the  F e i g e l m a n and  English experience.  Chitel  The  cases  Canadian  of  the  may  Mareva  to this point,  based  T h e s e two d e c i s i o n s  e x p r e s s i o n of the sometime-heard  overuse  either  remain d i f f e r e n t f o r  j u r i s p r u d e n c e has d e v e l o p e d v e r y q u i c k l y  caution  Manitoba  o r i n most o t h e r p r o v i n c e s  w h a t i s y e t t o come.  s i m p l y be a w a r n i n g  in  understand  i n both  American  thus the t e s t s w i l l  Secondly,  presage  adopt  whereas t h a t  Mareva s i t u a t i o n s u n t i l  on t h e e a r l i e r  to  t h e h i g h e s t c o u r t s have e a r l i e r  t h a t m a t t e r , and  simply  appeal courts  i t i s possible  i n s e v e r a l ways.  applicable  determines.  and  doctrine  in  may  judicial  inappropriate  circumstances.  In e i t h e r t h a t onus,  e v e n t , once b e i n g s a t i s f i e d  a c o u r t need t h e n weigh  70  o n l y whether  of  irreparable  harm  not  before  c o m p e n s a b l e by  assessing  B.  THE  damages t o e i t h e r p a r t y w o u l d 1 89 the balance of convenience.  REQUIREMENTS  The bear examination. they  have  result  g u i d e l i n e s (or f u r t h e r requirements) 1 90  Originally  come a f t e r  expressed  by  further explanation  Lord t o be  Denning, accepted  as  follows: ( 1 ) The of for  P l a i n t i f f s h o u l d make f u l l and f r a n k d i s c l o s u r e a l l matters i n h i s knowledge which are m a t e r i a l t h e j u d g e t o know;  ( 2 ) The P l a i n t i f f s h o u l d g i v e p a r t i c u l a r s o f h i s claim against the defendant, s t a t i n g the ground of his claim and t h e amount t h e r e o f , and f a i r l y stating t h e p o i n t s made a g a i n s t i t by t h e d e f e n d a n t ; (3)  The Plaintiff should give some g r o u n d s b e l i e v i n g t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t has a s s e t s w i t h i n jurisdiction;  (4)  The Plaintiff should give some g r o u n d s for believing t h a t there i s a r i s k of the a s s e t s being r e m o v e d b e f o r e t h e j u d g m e n t o r a w a r d c a n be satisfied; and  (5)  The P l a i n t i f f m u s t g i v e an u n d e r t a k i n g i n d a m a g e s , in case i t f a i l s i n i t s c l a i m or the injunction turns o u t t o be u n j u s t i f i e d ; in a suitable case, t h i s s h o u l d be s u p p o r t e d by a b o n d o r o t h e r s e c u r i t y .  In reported  and  Trainor  J.,  Manousakis v. authorities  unreported  British  Columbia,  judges  c a s e s have f o l l o w e d t h e s e  i n g r a n t i n g the  first  Mareva order  M a n o u s a k i s , d i d so on to that date although  71  the b a s i s of  in  for the  both  principles. in the  1979  in  English  h i s judgment preceded  the  Third  C h a n d r i s d e c i s i o n by some t h r e e  trial  judgments r e p o r t e d  i n this  Province  c a s e , t h e j u d g e s have each d e c l i n e d  Davies Devlin 1 91  and  Hean  Multiply  was  to  L.J.S.C.  grant  under  an  historic  earlier cases  authority failed  and  but  without  to  indicate  injunction. brief  to  Limited  payment o f monies several  benefit  t h a t a judgment  It  of as  of  the  transcript  Dean v .  the  the  binding applicant  t o adduce any  money  that  the  Mareva  issue  would  be  the  next reported  F o r d C r e d i t Canada L t d .  well established the  entered  the  indirectly.  British 1 92  et a l ,  p r i n c i p l e was a c k n o w l e d g e d by M c E a c h e r n  apply  v.  payable of  any  in  would appear a t l e a s t from t h e judgment and  In  Mareva  was)  i t was n o t a p r o p e r c a s e f o r a n i n t e r l o c u t o r y  argument o n l y  case,  landmark  restraining.  He r e v i e w e d the  that  he t h e n  order  u l t i m a t e l y concluded that  unenforceable,  being  (as  i n the fourth of the English guidelines  evidence  the  judgment.  since  Corporation  an  defendants from paying o r a c c e p t i n g  In the three  to grant the i n j u n c t i o n .  Development  asked  months.  i n Canada,  doctrine  the Chief  i n that p a r t i c u l a r  while C.J.S.C.  Justice case  simply: " I do n o t t h i n k t h a t t h i s i s a s u i t a b l e case t o permit execution or t o f u r n i s h s e c u r i t y before judgment."193  72  Columbia the as  declined  commenting  While misunderstanding judge of  earlier  Rule  on  of  t h a t would appear t o r e p r e s e n t  t h e Mareva  the  r e j e c t e d a r g u m e n t a s v / e l l on t h e  experienced applicability  46 ( 1 ) ( a ) t o t h e c a s e b e f o r e h i m a n d d i d n o t comment  the guidelines a t a l l .  the very f i r s t him  doctrine,  a  and t h u s ,  I t does n o t appear t h a t any  but  o f t h e l o n g l i n e o f Mareva cases were c i t e d i t i s n o t a judgment which  helpfully  adds  to to  the j u r i s p r u d e n c e i n the area.  In  Park.es v . C l a r k e , O x l e y a n d A r c h i 1 94 C l a r k e &^ Def i e u x L t d . , Proudfoot J . e a r l i e r this  bald, year  refused  specific before  to  performance her.  criteria, satisfy Rolls.  the  the  a Mareva o r d e r  in  judge  the  Third  concluded  I n a 1980 u n r e p o r t e d Westgulf  Chandris  listed  Macfarlane,  in  Wallace,  Inc.,  province,  Darling, Arkell,  C.C.J.J,  i n the cases c i t e d The  of  as to the  Catliff,  t h e same  other judges of  including  Dohm a n d M c L a c h l i n J J .  Huddart>  filed  c a s e , Greenwood F o r e s t P r o d u c t s 1 95  E x p o r t Lumber Co.  this  for  failed  by t h e M a s t e r  embraced t h e g u i d e l i n e s as have f i f t e e n bench  action  guidelines  that the p l a i n t i f f  two o f t h e f i v e elements  trial  an  on t h e s t r e n g t h o f t h e m a t e r i a l  Adopting  (1969) L t d . v. judge  grant  Meredith,  and M c C l e l l a n ,  M a c d o n a l d a n d v a n d e r Hoop 1 96  below.  f o u r Canadian  appeal  courts  which  have c o n s i d e r e d t h e Mareva have a l s o embraced and adopted t h e guidelines.  The  New  Brunswick  73  Court  applied  them  in  1 97 sustaining The  an  ex p a r t e o r d e r i n Humphreys  Manitoba  Financial  Court of Appeal  Services Limited  i n Feigelman 1 98  et a l  et  Buraglia. al  v.  upheld g r a n t i n g  junction  and  the O n t a r i o Court of Appeal 1 99  Rothbart  et  al  junction  w h i l e u p h o l d i n g t h e p r i n c i p l e and  fourth,  v.  in Chitel  an  in-  et a l  r e f u s e d t o a l l o w continuance of  t h e B.C.  Aetna  v.  the  in-  guidelines.  The  C o u r t i n S e k i s u i House K a b u s h i k i K a i s h a  v.  200  Ikuo Nagashima e t a l , directly  was  not f a c e d w i t h the i s s u e at  but agreed w i t h t h e i r a p p l i c a b i l i t y . I n t h e f i r s t o f t h e s e c a s e s , an ex  injunction  had  been o b t a i n e d t o p r e v e n t a d e f a u l t i n g  from d i s p o s i n g of c e r t a i n  p r o p e r t y w i t h i n New  The  defendant  had  a l s o been g r a n t e d a l l o w i n g him  ally.  had  real  When he  the i n j u n c t i o n Brunswick  i n f a c t been i n B r i t i s h  failed  served  the defendant  trial  after  decision  debtor  An  order  substitution-  service appealed  Court of Appeal without success.  parte  Brunswick.  Columbia.  t o have t h e w r i t ,  set aside,  C o u r t , S t r a t t o n J.A. earlier  t o be  a l l  thereof  and  to the  New  Speaking  f o r the  r e v i e w i n g t h e E n g l i s h c a s e s and  i n h i s own  province declared:  " . . . i f t h e r e e x i s t s a s u b s t a n t i v e cause o f a c t i o n on w h i c h t h e p l a i n t i f f i s s u i n g o r a b o u t t o sue i n t h i s P r o v i n c e and i t appears t h a t there i s danger that the d e f e n d a n t may a b s c o n d o r r e m o v e o r d i s p o s e o f h i s a s s e t s so as t o p r e v e n t s a t i s f a c t i o n o f any j u d g m e n t t h e p l a i n t i f f may o b t a i n , I am o f t h e o p i n i o n , f o r t h e reasons expressed i n the T h i r d Chandris S h i p p i n g c a s e and i n t h e P r i n c e A b d u l Rahman c a s e , t h a t t h e C o u r t s o f t h i s  74  an  P r o v i n c e have j u r i s d i c t i o n i n a p r o p e r c a s e t o g r a n t an i n t e r l o c u t o r y judgment so as t o p r e v e n t t h e d e f e n d a n t d i s p o s i n g o f a s s e t s w h i c h o t h e r w i s e m i g h t be a v a i l a b l e t o s a t i s f y a j u d g m e n t o b t a i n e d by the p l a i n t i f f . I would however r e p e a t the a d m o n i t i o n of L o r d Denning t h a t the M a r e v a i n j u n c t i o n m u s t n o t be s t r e t c h e d t o o f a r l e s t i t be e n d a n g e r e d a n d I w o u l d r e s p e c t f u l l y a d o p t as a p p l i c a b l e t o a l l a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r such i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f the g u i d e l i n e s enumerated i n t h e . T h i r d C h a n d r i s S h i p p i n g case."201  The the g u i d e l i n e s a federally  Manitoba  i n Feigelman.  In that  s u e d by M a n i t o b a  had  been  placed  i n r e c e i v e r s h i p by  to  defendant  h a d m a i n t a i n e d an o f f i c e  course  tained  its  s h a r e h o l d e r s of a second  pursuant  head  instance the  i n c o r p o r a t e d company w i t h h e a d o f f i c e  was  the  court similarly  powers  under  o f c l o s i n g down a n d  office,  i n Quebec.  an i n j u n c t i o n  The  a  the  defendant, in  Quebec,  company  which  defendant  debenture.  acting  While  i n t h e p r o v i n c e , i t was  removing  plaintiff  restraining  adopted  removal  i t s assets applied  the in  to  the  f o r and  ob-  of the a s s e t s  from  Manitoba.  In s u s t a i n i n g t h e a p p e a l c o u r t was  the g r a n t i n g of the o r d e r ,  u n e q u i v o c a l on t h i s  point:  "Subject to the general p r i n c i p l e s applicable to interlocutory injunctions, I w o u l d a d o p t as a p p l i c a b l e t o M a n i t o b a , t h e s t a t e m e n t o f p r i n c i p l e e x p r e s s e d by D e n n i n g M. R. i n M a r e v a , s u b j e c t t o t h e g u i d e l i n e s set out i n T h i r d Chandris...."202  75  Then t h e O n t a r i o judgment  d e l i v e r e d only  ferently,  although  ground. have  level,  i n their  by  f a r more M a r e v a c a s e s U n i t e d Kingdom.  authority  deeply  acceptance slow.  of  Early  difficult  back-  decisions of the Ontario  courts  As A p p e n d i x I I i l l u s t r a t e s , than  rooted  i t s dif-  acceptance o f t h e Mareva d o c t r i n e  guidelines.  the  in  s i x m o n t h s a g o r e a c t e d somewhat  its  save  of Appeal  f r o m a n o b v i o u s l y more  At the t r i a l  varied  Court  any o t h e r  O n t a r i o has had  legal  Because o f a  i n o l d e r common  jurisdiction,  heritage law  t h e new remedy by t h a t c o u r t  and  of  case 203  principles, was  alarmingly  g r a n t i n g such orders o f t e n d i d without 204 reference to the English decisions o r by e x t e n d i n g t h e 205 e x c e p t i o n s t o t h e common l a w r u l e . I t was n o t u n t i l 1981 that a c l e a r d e c i s i o n a p p r o v i n g t h e M a r e v a was made i n t h a t Province 206 al.  cases  i n L i b e r t y N a t i o n a l B a n k a n d T r u s t Co. v .  Atkin et  Montgomery J . i n t h a t c a s e d e p a r t e d 207 the  refusal  i n 1978  by L e r n e r  the Mareva p r i n c i p l e and t h e i r  J . ( a s he t h e n  judicial  Court  d e t e r m i n e d t o f o l l o w one c o u r s e  recent  Chitel  Chitel, by  him  of  sued h e r d o c t o r  her shares  brethren  of the  or the other  alleging  her i n s e c u r i t i e s matters.  Mareva  injunction  early  in  the  She o b t a i n e d proceedings  d i s p o s i t i o n of the physician's property a l l e g e d he i n t e n d e d  t o l e a v e Canada.  High  u n t i l the In  the conversion  i n two p r i v a t e companies  advised  was  was) t o a d o p t  c a s e a f f i r m e d t h e l e g i t i m a c y o f t h e remedy.  the p l a i n t i f f  from  as  he  had  an ex p a r t e restraining  or other assets-as i t \  The further many  injunction  was  continued  o c c a s i o n s a n d t h e a p p l i c a t i o n was f i n a l l y  more a f f i d a v i t s h a d b e e n  filed,  on  heard  c o n f l i c t i n g Ontario authority,  the  Because  t h e chambers j u d g e  referred  provision.  Speaking f o rhimself, JJ.A,  full  on  m a t t e r t o t h e P r o v i n c e ' s h i g h e s t c o u r t under an e n a b l i n g  statutory  on  after  cross-examination  them was c o m p l e t e d a n d p l e a d i n g s h a d b e e n e x c h a n g e d . of  two  M a c K i n n o n A.C.J.O.  the basis and  initial  that  frank  the p l a i n t i f f disclosure  application.  withheld pertinent misleading thereby  picture  Mrs.  to continue the injunction  had p a t e n t l y  failed  of a l l relevant  facts  Chitel,  information  i t was f o u n d ,  which r e s u l t e d  i n granting  on  her  to the exercise  any ex p a r t e  the  knowingly  of  the  parties court's  application.  the Associate  said:  "..the p l a i n t i f f must, i n s e c u r i n g an ex p a r t e i n t e r i m i n j u n c t i o n , make f u l l a n d frank disclosure of the relevant f a c t s , i n c l u d i n g f a c t s w h i c h may e x p l a i n t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' p o s i t i o n i f known t o t h e p l a i n tiff. I f t h e r e i s l e s s t h a n t h i s f u l l and a c c u r a t e d i s c l o s u r e i n a m a t e r i a l way o r i f t h e r e i s a m i s l e a d i n g o f t h e c o u r t on material facts i n the o r i g i n a l a p p l i c a t i o n , the c o u r t w i l l n o t e x e r c i s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n in favour of the p l a i n t i f f . . . . " 2 0 8  77  make  i n a completely  In the r a t i o of the case, Chief Justice  to  o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e  disentitling  discretion  refused  A r n u p a n d Goodman  Although not necessary s t r i c t l y for  the conclusion  obiter  he r e a c h e d ,  therafter  i n fourteen  elucidated  the current  Marevas.  Early  Mareva  principles 209 overruled.  were  After Canadian  t h e j u d g e i n what i s p r o b a b l y pages o f h i s w r i t t e n  state of the law i n Ontario  Ontario  cases r e f u s i n g declared  to  to  called  Mareva  applicants,  limit  r e f e r r i n g t o E n g l i s h and  "the p r o l i f e r a t i o n 210  injunction",  at least i n Ontario,  the  of  stated  the  Court  reasons  respecting  apply  " i n error"  a u t h o r i t i e s and i n what i s c l e a r l y  attempt  speaking  now  English  and  previous t o be  an  commonly  declared  that  have an a d d i t i o n a l burden i n  such c a s e s , even w i t h i n t h e Mareva g u i d e l i n e s : "As I m e n t i o n e d e a r l i e r , i t e m s ( 1 ) , ( 2 ) and ( 5 ) o f L o r d D e n n i n g ' s g u i d e l i n e s are standard c o n s i d e r a t i o n s f o r the courts o f t h i s p r o v i n c e when c o n s i d e r i n g t h e u s u a l a p p l i c a t i o n f o r an i n t e r l o c u t o r y i n j u n c t i o n . H o w e v e r , when a n a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a M a r e v a i n j u n c t i o n i s before the court, the material under items (1) and (2) o f t h e g u i d e l i n e s must be s u c h . . . a s p e r s u a d e s t h e c o u r t t h a t the p l a i n t i f f has a s t r o n g prima f a c i e case on t h e m e r i t s . ...(T)he m a t e r i a l under item ( 3 ) , which d e a l s with the assets of the defendant w i t h i n the j u r i s d i c t i o n , should e s t a b l i s h those assets w i t h a s much p r e c i s i o n a s p o s s i b l e s o t h a t , i f a Mareva i n j u n c t i o n i s warranted, i t i s d i r e c t e d t o w a r d s s p e c i f i c a s s e t s o r bank accounts.... T u r n i n g f i n a l l y t o item (4) o f Lord Denning's g u i d e l i n e s - the r i s k of removal of these a s s e t s b e f o r e judgment ...the a p p l i c a n t m u s t p e r s u a d e t h e c o u r t by h i s m a t e r i a l t h a t 78  were  the defendant i s removing or t h e r e i s r e a l r i s k t h a t he i s a b o u t t o remove h i s a s s e t s from the j u r i s d i c t i o n to a v o i d the p o s s i b i l i t y of a judgment, or t h a t the defendant i s otherwise d i s s i p a t i n g or d i s p o s i n g of h i s a s s e t s , i n a manner c l e a r l y d i s t i n c t f r o m h i s usual or o r d i n a r y course of business or l i v i n g , so as t o r e n d e r t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f f u t u r e t r a c i n g o f t h e a s s e t s remote, i f n o t imp o s s i b l e i n f a c t o r i n law."211 [ u n d e r l i n i n g mine ]  Within the  Ontario  Court  t h e same f i v e  o f A p p e a l a s we  earlier  extended the o b l i g a t i o n of the a p p l i c a n t material  a  strong prima f a c i e  a r g u a b l e c a s e on t h e m e r i t s . to tive  the f o u r t h g u i d e l i n e , limitation  with  or  discovered  has filed  merely' a  good  I t s h o u l d a l s o be n o t e d t h a t  t h e C o u r t has p r o p o s e d an  on a p l a i n t i f f ,  or l i v i n g .  then,  t o show i n h i s  c a s e and n o t  as  alterna-  allowing a defendant to deal  to "dissipate" his assets  business  guidelines  i n the  usual  course  R e c e n t E n g l i s h and C a n a d i a n  cases  of have  tended  t o acknowledge t h a t l i m i t a t i o n i n p a r t i c u l a r circum212 stances. The O n t a r i o d e c i s i o n h a s a l r e a d y b e e n a p p l i e d by a District 21 3 et a l .  Court judge i n t h a t P r o v i n c e i n G a s s i e r v.  In the B r i t i s h Japanese  construction  resident  in  contract. Justice  Vancouver,  company  Columbia  sued  its  f o r d e f a u l t under  An e x p a r t e M a r e v a o r d e r was McLachlan  or  t a k i n g any  his  or t h e i r  restraining  Gassier  case, Sekisui, customers,  now  the terms of  the  o b t a i n e d from  the defendants from  Madam  "removing  s t e p s t o r e m o v e o r o t h e r w i s e d i s p o s e o f any assets within  the j u r i s d i c t i o n 79  a  of  the  of  Court."  The  plaintiff  for  examination  defendants  subsequently applied  f o r summary j u d g m e n t  of the defendants  applied  to  stay  under Rule  or  dismiss  42A  the  and  ( 5 ) ; the action  as  vexatious.  Macdonald L.J.S.C. d i s m i s s e d a l l a p p l i c a t i o n s and  the p a r t i e s  appealed.  Thus Mareva judge  o r d e r was n o t a t i s s u e o n t h e was u p h e l d on h i s r u l i n g  dismissal file  the matter of the e f f i c a c y  but  a  the  helpful 21 4  handmaiden  In a very brief one  in  specifically  the Third Chandris guidelines,  Columbia  sentence  but clear  of  the  and  defendants  t o t h e Mareva which  commenting  British  chamber  i n the nature of discovery concerning  l a t e r examine.  of  The  the  a g a i n s t summary j u d g m e n t  the higher court required  an a f f i d a v i t  assets,  appeal.  of  to  their  we  shall  statement  after  Mareva  heritage,  the Chief  Justice  added:  " I am i n r e s p e c t f u l a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e s e requirements as p r e - c o n d i t i o n s f o r o b t a i n ing an i n j u n c t i o n b e f o r e judgment...."215  Quoting Ackner A.J.Bekhor  &^  Co.  Mareva  plaintiff's  Mareva  defendant  British  Columbia  L . J . i n h i s admonition i n 21 6 Bilton i n 1981 n o t t o c a r r y a  L t d . v.  privileged be t r e a t e d court  then  discovery of the defendants, 21 8 English authority. 80  position  too  l i k e a judgment refused aligning  the itself  far  lest the 21 7  debtor, plaintiff  the full  with the recent  The New decisions, referred  to  whether the  at  that by  Brunswick,  time  still  the Court  and  a l l i t  C.  is  From  country  and  i n the Federal (2)  uncertain  be v a r i e d  the recent  appeal  when  decisions,  courts of the provinces  one  conclusions:  Mareva i n j u n c t i o n s a r e a v a i l a b l e i n the  and  not  SUMMARISED  might summarize the f o l l o w i n g b a s i c  (1)  were  therefore will  Ontario  faced.  CANADIAN P O S I T I O N  five  unreported,  t h e r e m a r k s o f Nemetz C.J.B.C.  issue i s squarely  M a n i t o b a and  and t e r r i t o r i e s  superior i n Canada  Court;  A p l a i n t i f f seeking  M a r e v a r e l i e f must a b i d e  g u i d e l i n e s o u t l i n e d by L o r d  Denning i n T h i r d  the  Chandris,  a s e m b r a c e d by t h e C a n a d i a n c o u r t s ; (3) American  The c o u r t s g r a n t i n g M a r e v a r e l i e f w i l l Cyanamid  test  appropriate  to  apply  the  applications  for  interlocutory injunctions; (4) danger  I t i s no l o n g e r  necessary  to prove that there  that the defendant's assets w i l l  jurisdiction; r i s k of their  i t i s sufficient d i s p o s a l before  81  be r e m o v e d f r o m  to establish  that there  judgment i s o b t a i n e d ;  is a the is  a  (5) required there  The  applicant  in  jurisdictions  will  t o show a g o o d a r g u a b l e c a s e on i t s m e r i t s o r  i s a serious question  (6)  most  The c o u r t s  at least i n Ontario  applicant  t o show e i t h e r a p r i m a f a c i e c a s e o r a s t r o n g  will  require  the  have Mareva prima  c a s e on t h e m e r i t s ;  (7)  The e x i s t e n c e  of p r e - t r i a l  not preclude the granting  (8) court  and  and M a n i t o b a  the  will  rule  that  tried;  altered  facie  general  t o be  be  An a p p l i c a n t w i l l  a l s o be r e q u i r e d t o s a t i s f y cause o f a c t i o n  of the court.  82  procedures  o f a Mareva i n j u n c t i o n ;  t h a t he h a s a s u b s t a n t i v e  within the j u r i s d i c t i o n  attachment  the  justiciable  FOOTNOTES CHAPTER V I 179.  See B e a n , s u p r a , f n 6, d i s c u s s i o n b e g i n n i n g l y a t p. 79 f o r t h e c u r r e n t a u t h o r i t i e s .  180.  See d i s c u s s i o n ,  181.  As f o r e x a m p l e , see Manousakis, supra, f n 1 4 2 , B.P. Exploration, f n 13, and G r e a t e r Vancouver Sewerage and D r a i n a g e D i s t r i c t v . Ambassador I n d u s t r i e s L t d . (1983) 41 B.C.L.R. 292 ( B . C . C . A . ) , I n t e r - C i t y E x p r e s s L t d . v . Inter-City T r u c k L i n e s ( C a n . ) . I n c . ( 1 9 8 0 ) 16 B.C.L.R. 43 ( a l s o B.C.C.A.)  182.  Chitel,  183.  [1979]  184.  American  185.  S e e i n t e r e s t i n g d i s c u s s i o n by S t e e l e J . o f t h e O n t a r i o H i g h C o u r t i n t h e r e c e n t c a s e o f C a r l t o n R e a l t y Co. v . Maple Leaf M i l l s L t d . ( 1 9 7 8 ) 22 O.R. ( 2 d ) 1 8 9 , 93 D.L.R. ( 3 d ) 1 0 6 .  186.  Feigelman, (D.L.R.)  187.  Ibid.  188.  Chitel,  189.  Supra> f n 1 8 4 . The o t h e r f a c t o r s w h i c h may b e taken into a c c o u n t by t h e c o u r t i n w e i g h i n g t h a t b a l a n c e i f it i s s t i l l unsatisfied: ( i ) t h e need t o p r e s e r v e t h e s t a t u s quo, ( i i ) t h e c o u r s e o f a c t i o n which c r e a t e s t h e l e a s t uncompensable d i s a d v a n t a g e t o t h e p a r t i e s , ( i i i ) w h e t h e r one p a r t y ' s c a s e i s d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y s t r o n g e r than t h e o t h e r ' s and ( i v ) s p e c i a l f a c t o r s i n p a r t i c u l a r cases such as t r a d e d i s p u t e s , neighbour covenants, e t c .  190.  T h i r d C h a n d r i s , s u p r a , f n 6 2 , a t p. 984 ( A l l E.R.)  191.  ( 1 9 8 2 ) 34 B.C.L.R. 1 5 8 .  192.  Supra,  193.  Ibid,  194.  ( 1 9 8 3 ) 42 B.C.L.R. 2 6 8 .  195.  Unreported, Registry.  s u p r a , a t p p . 61-3 o f t h i s  particulartext.  s u p r a , f n 151. 3 A l l E.R. 6 1 4 . C y a n a m i d , s u p r a , f n 5, a t p. 510 ( A l l E . R . ) .  s u p r a , f n 1 7 , p e r S t r a t t o n J . A . a t p. 724  s u p r a , f n 1 5 1 , a t p. 532 (O.R.)  f n 16. a t p. 1 4 8 .  SCBC C 8 1 2 7 5 0 ,  83  June 25,  1980,  Vancouver  196.  See t h e c a s e s s a m p l e d  i n Appendix I I I .  197.  S u p r a , f n 147.  198.  Supra,  f n 149.  199.  Supra,  f n 151.  200.  Supra,  f n 16.  201.  H u m p h r i e s , s u p r a , a t p. 691  202.  F e i g e l m a n , s u p r a , a t p. 723.  203.  S e e D i v i s i o n a l C o u r t r e l u c t a n c e i n Bank o f M o n t r e a l v . Page P r o p e r t i e s L t d . e t a l ( 1 9 8 1 ) 32 O.R. (2d) 9 and d i s c u s s i o n b y S t o c k w o o d , s u p r a , f n 1 1 , a t p . 86 a n d 9 4 .  (A.P.R.)  204. ''Robert R e i s e r &^ Co. v . N a d o r e F o o d P r o c e s s i n g E q u i p m e n t L t d . e t a l , s u p r a , f n 28. 205.  M i l l s and M i l l s v . P e t r o v i c e t a l , s i m i l a r cases mentioned t h e r e .  206.  (1981)  207.  O.S.F. I n d u s t r i e s L t d . v. [ 1 9 7 8 ] 88 D.L.R. (3d) 446, 57.  208.  S u p r a , a t p. 519.  209.  Ibid, a t p. 532. J . , s u p r a , f n 207.  210.  Ibid,  a t p. 5 1 5 .  211.  Ibid,  a t pp. 532-3.  212.  See C h a p t e r V I I , i n f r a .  213.  An u n r e p o r t e d judgment o f V a n n i n i , D.C.J, o f t h e O n t ario D i s t r i c t C o u r t on F e b r u a r y 22, 1983, c i t e d at ( 1 9 8 3 ) 18 A.C.W.S. 3 5 1 .  214.  See C h a p t e r V I I I ,  215.  S u p r a , f n 16, a t p. 7 Reasons f o r Judgment.  216.  [1981]  217.  Ibid,  218.  Sekisui,  121 D.L.R.  ( 3 d ) 1 6 0 , 31 O.R.  s u p r a , f n 31, and  (2d) 715.  Marc-Jay Investments I n c . 20 O.R.(2d) 5 6 6 , 7 C.P.C.  Particularly  the decision of Lerner  infra.  1 L l o y d s R e p . 4 9 1 , 2 A l l E.R. 5 6 5 .  v  a t p . 577 ( A l l E.R.) s u p r a , f n 16, a t p. 8 o f Reasons.  . If ' \\ \  84  CHAPTER V I I - V A R I A T I O N , EXTENSION & DISSOLUTION  In are  some  often granted solely  applicant extent unusual  and  when  applications  order varied,  this  shall  circumstances  we  under  a r e known  of the defendant's  have t h e o r i g i n a l chapter,  Mareva  orders  on r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s on b e h a l f o f  few d e t a i l s  or whereabouts for further  measure because  of  the  assets,  i t is  such  not  or even'vacated.  e x a m i n e some o f t h e p u r p o s e s  which  nature,  t o be made t o t h e c o u r t  extended  alterations  are  an  for  to In and  normally  allowed.  A.  VACATING THE  ORDER  Far ception to the t r a d i t i o n a l  from  being  rule  simply a  i n L i s t e r v. 219  judges adamantly  continue to maintain,  is  particularly  widespread,  jurisprudence observed  in  several  L t d . v. D i x o n and  m o n t h s ago 220 Another:  i n PCW  Stubbs  the Mareva  the U n i t e d  develops at i t s fastest  further  rate.  (Underwriting  "From h a v i n g b e e n r e g a r d e d a t f i r s t as an e x c e p t i o n a l remedy... t h e y had by 1979 become c o m m o n p l a c e . . . . In the Commecial Court a l o n e a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r M a r e v a i n j u n c t i o n s a r e now r u n n i n g a t t h e r a t e o f 40 a m o n t h ; i n t h e Q u e e n ' s B e n c h l i s t t h e number o f ex p a r t e a p p l i c a t i o n s has i n c r e a s e d from 785 i n 1979 t o d o u b l e t h a t f i g u r e i n 1983.... T h e r e i s no d i v i s i o n o f t h e 85  as  some  practice  Kingdom As  ex-  where  Lloyd  J.  Agencies)  High Court i n which Mareva i n j u n c t i o n s a r e n o t now r e g u l a r l y granted."221  He portion  of injunctions granted  re-hearing Court  before  of Appeal  original is  a l s o remarked t h a t o n l y a very  the court.  earlier  order  was  for  the  U.K.  Where t h e y a r e n o t ,  referred,  usually  f o r re-hearing.  improperly obtained,  as  back  because t h e terms of t h e  o r d e r have been a p p r o p r i a t e .  t o t h e Chamber l i s t  come  That i s l i k e l y 222  remarked  open t o have t h e m a t t e r  notice,  ex p a r t e e v e r  small  on v e r y  i t  short  I n the event the  the defendant  can apply  to  have t h e o r d e r s t r u c k . Most a p p l i c a t i o n s the  defendant's  initiative  although  f o r r e - h e a r i n g come a t  in  those  jurisdictions 223  where  the order  stances  can  plaintiff further before be of  i s o f an i n t e r i m n a t u r e o n l y ,  be r e v i e w e d  anew by t h e c o u r t a t t h e  makes a p p l i c a t i o n period.  reluctant the f i r s t  judge  case,  and w h i l e t h e second  discretion,  r e v e l a t i o n of other facts If  tiff  had  defendant  c a n show  by  exercise  no e n t i t l e m e n t t o t h e o r i g i n a l  affidavit  are incorrect or  and t h a t on t h e t r u e s t a t e o f a f f a i r s  86  may  result.  t h a t m a t e r i a l f a c t s a l l e g e d by t h e p l a i n t i f f misleading  often  initially by  a  a change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s o r  can have t h a t a  the  for  the hearing i s  t o i n t e r f e r e w i t h an o r d e r g r a n t e d judge's  time  t o have t h e o r d e r extended  In the l a t t e r  a different  the circum-  order,  the  plain-  i tw i l l  be  224 vacated.  T h i s w o u l d a p p e a r t o be t r u e w h e t h e r t h e  facts  were o r i g i n a l l y  as t h e d e f e n d a n t i s a b l e t o e s t a b l i s h o r have 225 subsequently developed. The p l a i n t i f f i s r e q u i r e d t o  only  satisfy Third and  t h e c o u r t on a l l f i v e g u i d e l i n e s f o r m u l a t e d Chandris  a  failure  order.  A  case,  s u b j e c t t o what i s s a i d  t o do so w i l l  failure  disentitle  t o prove that there  t h e a p p l i c a n t as an i n a b i l i t y  him t o  the  i s real  r i s k of  of a s s e t s  i n the j u r i s d i c t i o n belonging  defendant  may  dislodge case"  the  well  be a b l e t o p r o v e  and, a t l e a s t  i n Ontario case"  By  intends  to  matters remain  existence  sufficient  A  facts  to  arguable  position  even  him  may  venience  t o ensure maintainance  of  to contest  w e l l be a b l e  necessity of the r e s t r i c t i v e  his  assets  balance  the  claim  of  con-  o f t h e s t a t u s quo w i t h o u t t h e  order.  The M a r e v a p r i n c i p l e 227  i f a defendant i s able  o r i m p r o p e r m o t i v e on t h e p a r t o f h i s  87  fide  in  the p l a i n t i f f ' s  to t i p the  situations.  Lastly,  discretion  a d e f e n d a n t who b o n a  with sufficient  e s t a b l i s h e d f o r such  fatal  a n d M a n i t o b a , t h e b u r d e n o f "a  generally,  against  faith  the  v i r t u e of the c o u r t ' s wide  and s e r i o u s l y  bad  i s as  attack.  jurisdiction  not  the  t o the defendant.  make's t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s  more v u l n e r a b l e when u n d e r  equitable  special  o n u s o n a n a p p l i c a n t t o show "a g o o d  strong prima f a c i e  in  to establish  the 226  hereafter,  defendant's removal or d i s p o s i t i o n of h i s assets to  in  to  was  show  adversary,  such  facts  result  are  equally d i s a s t r o u s to  follows similarly  lines  requiring full  court  in Chitel  from the  and  the  first  of  plaintiff.  the Mareva 228  frank d i s c l o s u r e .  As  The guide-  the  Ontario  warned:  " T h e r e i s no n e c e s s i t y f o r c i t a t i o n o f any a u t h o r i t y to s t a t e the obvious t h a t the p l a i n t i f f m u s t , i n s e c u r i n g an ex p a r t e M a r e v a i n j u n c t i o n , make f u l l and f r a n k d i s c l o s u r e of the r e l e v a n t f a c t s , i n c l u d i n g f a c t s w h i c h may e x p l a i n t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s p o s i t i o n i f known t o t h e p l a i n t i f f . If t h e r e i s l e s s t h a n t h i s f u l l and accurate d i s c l o s u r e i n a m a t e r i a l way o r r f t h e r e i s a m i s l e a d i n g o f t h e c o u r t on m a t e r i a l f a c t s i n the o r i g i n a l a p p l i c a t i o n , the c o u r t w i l l not e x e r c i s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n In favour of the p l a i n t i f f . . . . " 2 2 9  It  is  equally  withhold the  bad  others  court  is  faith  with  the  incomplete  hands" d o c t r i n e w i l l  to r e l a t e result or  clearly  truthful  facts  but  to  t h a t the  picture left with 230 misleading. The "unclean  work t o a d e f e n d a n t ' s  advantage  i  in  such  situations.  B.  PROVIDING SECURITY  If  a  c a t i o n f o r a Mareva order defendant  to post  principal however,  plaintiff's  specifically  f u n c t i o n of  the  Lister  an a u t h o r i t y w o r t h c i t i n g ) ,  as  order  While not  the  claim, regarded  ( f o r i t w o u l d e v e n more c l e a r l y  88  appli-  i s i n fact to require  s e c u r i t y f o r the  motive i s l e g i t i m a t e .  purpose of  most  judges  the such  as  a  disturb openly  acknowledge  that  injunction suitable the  is  fast  method o f  discharging  f o r the defendant t o provide  security  order  a  satisfactory  dissolved  by  a  some  Mareva form  to the p l a i n t i f f  consent.  In  and t o 231 Pertamina,  of have Lord  t  D e n n i n g went so f a r as t o s a y :  "In a case where t h e d e f e n d a n t i s a b l e t o p u t up s e c u r i t y , i t may o f t e n b e j u s t and c o n v e n i e n t t o g r a n t an i n j u n c t i o n t o s e e t h a t he d o e s i t . " 2 3 2  While defendant's  inability  others  suggested  t o o b t a i n s e c u r i t y may w e l l  wisdom  o f g r a n t i n g an i n j u n c t i o n  danger  in  extending  have  the practice  i n the f i r s t too  that  prove 233  place,  far is  a the the  obvious.  A t  successful by  a  Mareva p l a i n t i f f  defendant's  jurisdiction, of  general assets being  albeit  they  i n priority  retained  are available  a l l of h i s c r e d i t o r s ;  security  i s i n some s e n s e a l r e a d y  within  to satisfy  t o a l l o w him i n each  secured the  the claims  case  formal  t o other c r e d i t o r s would indeed  be p r e -  judgment a t t a c h m e n t o u t s i d e t h e bounds o f c u r r e n t s t a t u t e l a w and  beyond t h e scope o f Mareva's i n i t i a l  design.  A recent e x t e n s i o n of note strated in of the  by CBS U n i t e d K i n g d o m L t d . v .  t h e U.K. C o u r t  of Appeal  assets belonging plaintiff  illu234  Lambert and Another  where t h e c o u r t r e q u i r e d d e l i v e r y  t o the defendants  pending  i s that  trial  89  of  the  to the action.  solicitor While  for some  235 earlier  Canadian cases  specific  sums  balances,  of  etc.)  plaintiff,  i t  property.  The  have r e q u i r e d the defendant to  money ( p r o c e e d s into  court  would  now  of  to act  sale, as  appear to  bank  U n i t e d Kingdom c o u r t d i d  account  security  include  pay  for  a l l  the  moveable  add:  "... no o r d e r s h o u l d be made f o r t h e d e l i v e r y up o f a d e f e n d a n t ' s w e a r i n g apparel, bedding, f u r n i s h i n g s , t o o l s of h i s t r a d e , farm implements, l i v e s t o c k o r any m a c h i n e s ( i n c l u d i n g m o t o r v e h i c l e s ) o r o t h e r goods s u c h as m a t e r i a l s or stock i n trade, which i t i s l i k e l y he u s e s f o r t h e . p u r p o s e s o f a l a w f u l business.... I f the evidence, i s c l e a r t h a t s u c h . . . were bought f o r the purpose of f r u s t r a t i n g judgment c r e d i t o r s t h e y c o u l d be i n c l u d e d i n the order."236 Unless party  there would  however, given  to  to the  is  likelihood  ignore the court order, require  possession  order  i s related  seems  of the a s s e t s  o f w h i c h we  requires  shall  the pay  q u e s t i o n of  to h i s r i g h t  third  unnecessary actually  s e c u r i t y a v a i l a b l e to  t o o b t a i n an A n t o n  s a y more l a t e r  The lines  i t  a  be  plaintiff.  The plaintiff  t h a t the defendant or  fifth  in this  applicant  undertaking  to  damages i f t h e c l a i m o r  proves l a t e r  t o have been u n j u s t i f i e d .  90  Piller  chapter.  of the T h i r d Chandris  successful  a  to  guide-  provide  the  I t i s both  an  injunction fair  and  realistic  that  plaintiff  and  afforded While to  the  Rule  an  required.  risk  s h o u l d be  borne  i t i s i n t h i s way t h a t person  a British  an u n d e r t a k i n g ,  undertaking 237  or  It  part  order  is  a  security  obtained. discretion  i ti s infrequently  be n o t e d  by  protection i s  Columbia c o u r t  actual  should  in  some  a g a i n s t whom t h e  45 ( 6 ) p e r m i t s  waive such  and  the  exercised  is  however,  normally  t h a t i t has  been waived  i n some M a r e v a c a s e s w h e r e h a r d s h i p m i g h t other238 result. I t i s n o t unknown i n t h i s P r o v i n c e f o r t h e  wise  requirements t o be w a i v e d on 239 cations a n d some j u d g e s w i l l security 240  so  given. plaintiff jurisdiction but  long By  virtue  will  in  of any  interlocutory  refuse to require  as t h e s t a n d a r d  written  instigating event  have  additional  undertaking  submitted  the  to  h i s own  is  the claim  as d e f e n d a n t t o any c o u n t e r c l a i m .  such  an u n d e r t a k i n g  p r o t e c t i o n bestowed on a  has been extended t o t h i r d  m i g h t a l s o be a f f e c t e d by a M a r e v a o r d e r . some all  appli-  proceedings,  of the court not only concerning  The by  other  orders banks,  some t h i r d being  defendant parties  who  As t h e e f f e c t  of  i s r a t h e r s w e e p i n g when o n e c o n s i d e r s s e r v i c e o n brokerages  and o t h e r d e p o s i t o r i e s o f a  defendant,  p a r t i e s q u i t e unconnected w i t h the l i t i g a t i o n  required  under p e n a l t y o f contempt  spend c o n s i d e r a b l e time  and e f f o r t  91  or  t o comply.  committal  were to  It that  a  successful  indemnify  third  i s now u s u a l  plaintiff  parties against  f o r the court  undertake  to  liability  and  to provide  protect to  and  reimburse  them f o r r e a s o n a b l e e x p e n s e s i n c u r r e d when r e q u i r e d t o c o m p l y 241 w i t h a Mareva order. This c o u l d i n c l u d e a bank's c o s t s t o 242 locate a defendant's accounts or a port authority's loss of  income  by r e q u i r i n g a d e f e n d a n t ' s v e s s e l 243  commercial berth. had  While the Canadian courts  issues before  protection orders third are  party  i n increase, security will  i n the United  C.  court This with  to  may  i ti s likely  of  requirements f o r  be a t l e a s t a s s t r i n g e n t a s  on  p e r s o n a f f e c t e d by a n  proper notice apply  have t h e terms o f t h e order  applies the order 244 matter.  terms  equally  to third  they  to  interlocutory  the o r i g i n a t i n g  reviewed  or  varied.  p a r t i e s who h a v e b e e n  served  a n d t o l i t i g a n t s who a r e p a r t i e s i n t h e  cause  The M a r e v a o r d e r  by v i r t u e o f i t s v e r y  i s frequently s e t i n broad 245 nature and t h i r d p a r t i e s a r e  o f t e n a f f e c t e d not as subjects  of  as t h e i n c i d e n c e  VARYING TERMS OF THE ORDER  injunction  of  concerning  Kingdom.  Any  or  parties,  a  have n o t y e t  them r e q u i r i n g much d i s c u s s i o n  of r i g h t s of t h i r d  begins  t o remain a t  of the injunction but  t h e law o f contempt o f c o u r t i f they a c t c o n t r a r y 246 the order. As has been r e c e n t l y p o i n t e d o u t :  92  because  \  t d terms  "As s o o n a s t h e j u d g e makes h i s o r d e r , i t t a k e s e f f e c t on e v e r y a s s e t o f t h e d e f e n d a n t c o v e r e d by t h e t e r m s o f t h e i n j u n c t i o n , b e f o r e the defendant hims e l f c a n be s e r v e d and e v e n b e f o r e t h e o r d e r i s d r a w n up. Thus, every person who h a s k n o w l e d g e o f i t must do w h a t he r e a s o n a b l y c a n t o p r e s e r v e t h e a s s e t . He must n o t a s s i s t i n any way i n t h e d i s p o s a l o f i t o r he w i l l be i n c o n t e m p t . " 2 4 7 248 The  U.K.  given who  Court  of Appeal  some l i m i t e d  are  but  i n Z L t d . v.  forthright  importance  f o l l o w the d i r e c t i o n s  to  b a n k s and  suggested  Canadian courts should determine If either  apply be  contrary attempt  to  with  i t is  of  depositories  to  the  a third  l o n g as t h e  order  until  proves  party should that  third.party  i t  obmight  i s not  o f t h e d e f e n d a n t whose i n t e r e s t o r m o t i v e  to t h a t of the p l a i n t i f f , to satisfy  application  the court normally  t h e o b j e c t i o n s r a i s e d by  to vary.  p a r t y and  the p l a i n t i f f  exercised  by  pointed  parties  at least 249 other guidelines.  compliance  So  has  case,  h a v e i t s t e r m s v a r i e d so  made w o r k a b l e . 250  collaborator  has  AA-LL  to t h i r d  other  in this  i m p r a c t i c a l or impossible,  viously  an  guidance  and  s e r v e d w i t h n o t i c e of a Mareva i n j u n c t i o n ;  particular  fairly  A-Z  a third  I t i s when i n t e r e s t s  is will  party  of the  the terms at a l l .  out:  "A s e r i o u s p o t e n t i a l d r a w b a c k p e r m i t t i n g a v a r i a t i o n ... o f  93  of the  on  third  a r e c o m p e t i n g t h a t g r e a t c a r e must  the judge i n a l t e r i n g  a  As  be  Rose  i n j u n c t i o n a t the i n s t i g a t i o n of a t h i r d party intervenor or of the d e f e n d a n t i s t h a t o f p r e f e r r i n g one c r e d i t o r t o another."251  To  allow a third  assets  party  to deal with  f r o z e n by v i r t u e o f a M a r e v a o r d e r  s u c c e s s f u l a p p l i c a n t from t h e f r u i t s by  allowing i t s disposition  ducing  i n total  which might otherwise  other  creditors after  Panama v .  J.  request  in  the  ex  charterer. contract  parte The  'with  carriage  recent  cases  have been s e v e r a l i n i n Oceania  U.K.  (The  when  London  to  served  with  attaching  against  with  Board  a  order  his defaulting  a Rumanian c o r p o r a t i o n , which  had  involved  The  a  the  defendant's  f r o z e n by a Mareva i n j u n c t i o n , were i n f a c t f u n d s were d e p o s i t e d  with Barclay's  a c t as s u b s t i t u t e s e c u r i t y . the  the  THEOTOKOS),  t h e terms of a Mareva  by a s h i p o w n e r  last  Armadora 258  C o m m e r c i a l C o u r t was f a c e d  the National Coal  the  the  Castelana  Mineralimportexport  defendant,  cargoes of coke,  jurisdic-  illustrate  o f coke from E n g l a n d t o Rumania.  released  p a r t y o r by r e -  be a v a i l a b l e t o t h e p l a i n t i f f a n d  by B a r c l a y s Bank t o v a r y  obtained  a  of the procedure, e i t h e r  t o o r by a t h i r d  difficulties although there 252 year. Earlier t h i s year  Lloyd  could w e l l defeat  judgment.  Two  of  defendant's  the defendant's assets w i t h i n the  tion  S.A.  some o f t h e  original  order  f u n d s on a c c o u n t ,  94  and  Bank  The Bank w h i c h a  subsequent  sought leave  to  in was  Mareva  vary  the  injunction  t o a l l o w i t t o s e t o f f i t s own c l a i m s a g a i n s t t h e  defendant.  Mr. the order  by a d d i n g  Justice  L l o y d v a r i e d t h e terms  of  the clause,  "Provided nothing i n t h i s injunction s h a l l p r e v e n t ( t h e bank) from e x e r c i s i n g a n y r i g h t s o f s e t - o f f i t may have i n r e s p e c t o f f a c i l i t i e s a f f o r d e d by ( t h e b a n k ) t o t h e d e f e n d a n t s p r i o r t o the date of t h i s injunction."254 By t h i s means, defendant's claim, off  he ( i ) a l l o w e d  funds  on d e p o s i t  defendant,  including  so,  future  by  dilemma  several on  second  days,  further  an a p p l i c a t i o n  dicta  case,  for variation  i t had a g a i n s t t h e  in  claims.  several  which  but  In  recent  followed  the  the  court's  also  clearly  initially  felt  by  who r e c e i v e d u n o p p o s e d M a r e v a i n j u n c t i o n s . I n PCW 256  (Underwriting defendant  plaintiff's  t h e bank t o s e t -  illustrates  a d i r e c t i o n away f r o m t h e c o m f o r t  plaintiffs  Agencies)  L t d . v.  himself applied to vary  been sought e a r l i e r within  the  i n t e r e s t on such  the  The  points  of  f u n d s any c l a i m s  court followed 255 i n t h e U.K.  decisions  first  i n excess  i n c l u s i v e o f c o s t s , and ( i i ) a l l o w e d  against the remaining  doing  t h e bank t o r e l e a s e any o f t h e  and g r a n t e d ,  the j u r i s d i c t i o n ,  D i x o n and A n o t h e r ,  the  the injunction  had  attaching a l l of h i s assets  s a v e f o r "a r e a s o n a b l e 95  which  living  ex-  pense "a  o f 100 p o u n d s p e r week."  member  crease  o f L l o y d ' s a n d a w e a l t h y man,"  hisliving  certain  The d e f e n d a n t , 257  of  d e s c r i b e d as  wished  to i n -  a l l o w a n c e t o 1,000 p o u n d s w e e k l y ,  h i s o t h e r d e b t s and t o pay  his  to  pay  solicitors  on  a c c o u n t f o r t h e i r d e f e n c e o f t h e a c t i o n b r o u g h t by t h e p l a i n tiff. The and  original  had t h e e f f e c t o f " f r e e z i n g "  siderable  assets  carefully  the risk  in  h i s own  o r d e r was v e r y b r o a d  a l l of the defendant's country.  of the defendant's  After  removal  the s e c u r i t y remaining f o r the p l a i n t i f f  and  so  long  defendant's 258 made:.  and t h i r d as  remaining  not  assets,  orders  dissipate are  "The ... j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r t h e M a r e v a i s t o p r e v e n t t h e p l a i n t i f f from b e i n g cheated out of the proceeds of t h e i r a c t i o n , s h o u l d i t b e s u c c e s s f u l ... not t o secure p r i o r i t y f o r t h e p l a i n t i f f ... s t i l l l e s s , t o p u n i s h t h e d e f e n d a n t f o r h i s a l l e g e d misdeeds. I am n o t g o i n g t o a t t e m p t t o d e f i n e i n t h i s c a s e w h a t i s meant by d i s s i p a t i n g a s s e t s w i t h i n t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o r where t h e l i n e i s t o be d r a w n ; b u t w h e r e v e r t h e l i n e i s t o be drawn t h i s i s w e l l within i t . I t c o u l d n o t p o s s i b l y be s a i d t h a t he i s d i s s i p a t i n g h i s a s s e t s by l i v i n g a s he h a s a l w a y s l i v e d . . . .  96  requested.  i s not s u r p r i s i n g  alarmingly such  weighing  and t h e b a s i s o f t h e  reasons, the r e s u l t  i t does  con-  of h i s assets,  defendant's need, t h e c o u r t a l l o w e d t h e v a r i a t i o n s For the f i r s t  indeed  the  regularly  I say n o t h i n g about the c o s t of defending himself i n these proceedings. The M a r e v a j u r i s d i c t i o n was n e v e r i n t e n d e d t o prevent e x p e n d i t u r e s such as t h i s "259  Given is not surprising to  vary  deal  the nature  t h a t c o u r t s on o c c a s i o n have been  t h e terms of t h e i r  with their 260  business. osition  assets  orders  to permit  i n the ordinary  One s i m i l a r l y that  of the injunction,  is  a n d s h o u l d be e n a b l e d  t o defend  there i s a reasonable (certainly  to  course  the action defence  of  their  the  prop-  to  live  while the l i t i g a t i o n  to retain  and  pay h i s  i n i t i a t e d by t h e p l a i n t i f f i f  available.  With  the existence  of fraudulent preferences  i n these  jurisdictions  ever  legislation,  v a r y a Mareva  t h e o n e who h a s o b t a i n e d  It  law  should  injunction  a l l o w a d e f e n d a n t t o p a y t h e d e b t owed t o a c r e d i t o r  than  to  i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a a n d i n many o t h e r common  jurisdictions) courts  defendants  a M a r e v a d e f e n d a n t s h o u l d be a l l o w e d  i n progress  solicitors  prepared  cannot argue a g a i n s t  according to h i s usual standard or style  i t  other  the injunction?  i s clear  t h a t some d e b t s  should  be  a l l o w e d p r i o r i t y t o t h a t o f t h e p l a i n t i f f b u t t h e c o u r t s when permitting tread  variations  very  creditors  to  carefully  lest clear  original  in  sanctioning  injustice  97  Mareva o r d e r s  should  ought  preferences  result.  to  among  FOOTNOTES CHAPTER V I I 219.  F o r e x a m p l e , s e e v i e w s o f M a c K i n n o n A.C.J.O. i n C h i t e l , s u p r a , f n 1 5 1 , a t p . 531.(O.R.)  220.  [ 1 9 8 3 ] 2 A l l E.R.  221.  I b i d , a t p.  222.  S e e D e n n i n g M.R., i n T h i r d ' C h a n d r i s , s u p r a , f n 6 2 .  223.  As i n t h e Fe'deral C o u r t , s e e C h a p t e r V I , s u p r a , a n d i n some o f t h e p r o v i n c i a l s u p e r i o r c o u r t s . I t i s of course open t o t h e c o u r t even i n B r i t i s h Columbia t o grant a Mareva o r d e r u n t i l a f i x e d time i n o r d e r that t h e d e f e n d a n t may b e s e r v e d a n d b e h e a r d o n t h e m e r i t s of t h e i n j u n c t i o n .  224.  As i n C h i t e l ,  225.  I t i s notgenerally construed as " s u b s t i t u t i n g one's own d i s c r e t i o n " f o r t h a t o f t h e o r i g i n a l j u d g e i f t h e r e is a subsequent change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s o r f a c t s which s h o u l d have been d i s c l o s e d on t h e o r i g i n a l application w e r e e a r l i e r unknown o r w i t h h e l d .  226.  S e e comments, supra, a t pp. 90-1, c o n c e r n i n g u n d e r t a k i n g r e q u i r e d o f t h e Mareva p l a i n t i f f .  227.  The c o u r t s g u a r d a g a i n s t p u t t i n g such a d e f e n d a n t i n the same p o s i t i o n a s a j u d g m e n t d e b t o r . S e e comments o f Nemetz C . J . B . C . i n S e k i s u i , s u p r a , f n 1 6 .  228.  As s e t o u t a t p. 7 1 , s u p r a .  229.  Chitel,  230.  Ibid,  231.  Pertamina,  232.  Ibid,  233.  R o s e , F.B. "The M a r e v a I n j u n c t i o n - A t t a c h m e n t i n P e r sonam" ( 1 9 8 1 ) L l o y d s M a r . & Comm. L . Q u a r t e r l y 1 7 7 , a t p. 1 8 3 .  234.  [ 1 9 8 2 ] 3 W.L.R. 7 4 6 , 3 A l l E.R. 2 3 7 .  235.  See f o r example, Quinn v . M a r s t a e t a l ( 1 9 8 1 ) 34 O.R. ( 2 d ) 6 5 9 .  158.  160.  supra, f n 151.  the  s u p r a , f n 1 5 1 , a t p . 519.(O.R.)  a t p.  520.  s u p r a , f n 66.  a t p.  662.  98  Cession Services L t d .  236.  S u p r a , f n 2 3 4 , a t p . 752 (W.L.R.) The a s s e t s o r d e r e d in this case t o be d e l i v e r e d t o t h e s o l i c i t o r were a Jaguar, a Lotus and a S c i m i t a r s p o r t s c a r .  237.  The R u l e r e a d s " U n l e s s t h e c o u r t o t h e r w i s e orders..." See d e c i s i o n o f W a l l a c e J . i n O i l w o r l d S u p p l y Company et a l v . G a r y A u d a s e t a l ( U n r e p o r t e d SCBC C830812, March 14, 1983, V a n c o u v e r R e g i s t r y ) f o r u s u a l d i s p o s i tion. In this c a s e a s t h e p l a i n t i f f was a f o r e i g n corporation, i t was o b l i g e d t o p o s t security i n addition . t o providing t h e usual written form o f undertaking.  238.  Allan a n d O t h e r s v . Jambo H o l d i n g s L t d . [ 1 9 8 0 ] 1 W.L.R. 1 2 5 2 , 2 A l l E.R. 502.  239.  S e e t h e f o l l o w i n g B.C. d e c i s i o n s : D e l t a v . N a t i o n w i d e A u c t i o n s I n c . [ 1 9 7 9 ] 4 W.W.R. 4 9 , a d e c i s i o n o f L o c k e J.; Save-on-Meats v . J i m P a t t i s o n L t d . (Unreported, SCBC C 8 2 3 3 8 7 , Vancouver R e g i s t r y ) , a d e c i s i o n o f Esson J.; Watson e t a l v . C i t y o f Vancouver e t a l (Unreported, SCBC C 8 2 7 5 7 6 , F e b r u a r y 7, 1 9 8 3 , V a n c o u v e r R e g i s t r y ) , a decision of Proudfoot, J .  240.  See Parmar Fisheries L t d . v. Parceria Maritime E s p e r a n c a L.DA. e t a l ( 1 9 8 2 ) 141 D.L.R. ( 3 d ) 4 9 8 , 53 N.S.R. ( 2 d ) 3 3 8 , 109 A.P.R. 3 3 8 , a d e c i s i o n o f Nunn J . o f t h e T r i a l D i v i s i o n o f t h e N o v a S c o t i a Supreme C o u r t .  241.  Z L t d . v . A-2 a n d A A - L L , i n f r a , f n 2 4 8 . The C o u r t o f Appeal i n t h i s case e x t e n s i v e l y reviewed developments related t o Mareva i nthe s i x years since 1975 and helpfully provided guidelines forthird parties i n d e a l i n g w i t h M a r e v a order's s e r v e d o n them.  242.  S e a r o s e L t d . v . S e a t r a i n (U.K.) L t d . [ 1 9 8 1 ] 1 W.L.R. 894, 1 L l o y d s R e p . 5 5 6 , 1 A l l E.R. 8 0 6 .  243.  C l i p p e r M a r i t i m e Co. L t d . o f M o n r o v i a v . M i n e r a l i m p o r t e x p o r t ( T h e MARIE LEONHARDT) [ 1 9 8 1 ] 1 W.L.R. 1 2 6 2 , 2 Lloyds R e p . 4 5 8 , 3 A l l E.R. 6 6 4 . S e e a l s o G a l a x i a M a r i t i m e S.A. v . M i n e r a l i m p o r t e x p o r t ( T h e ELETHERIOS and t h e GRECIAN LEGEND) a n d O c e a n b l u e C o m p a n i a N a v i e r a S.A. a s I n t e r v e n o r s [ 1 9 8 2 ] 1 W.L.R. 5 3 9 , 1 L l o y d s R e p . 3 5 1 , 1 A l l E.R. 7 9 6 .  244.  S e e B.P. E x p l o r a t i o n s Company ( L i b y a ) L i m i t e d v . H u n t [ 1 9 8 1 ] 1 W.W.R. 2 0 9 , [ 1 9 8 0 ] 114 D.L.R. ( 3 d ) 3 5 , a t p . 213 (W.W.R.), I r a q u i M i n i s t r y o f D e f e n c e , s u p r a , f n 7 3 . and t h e c a s e s c i t e d h e r e a f t e r .  245.  O f t e n t h e language w i l l p r o v i d e t h a t " t h e defendants by themselves, their servants o r agents o r otherwise howsoever be r e s t r a i n e d . . . . "  99  and Others  246.  Contempt p r o c e e d i n g s a r e a v a i l a b l e as they would f o r other breaches of a court order. See M c A l l i s t e r , s u p r a , f n 1 1 , p. 88.  247.  A r l i d g e , A. a n d E a d y , D. The Law o f C o n t e m p t . Sweet & M a x w e l l , 1982. A t p. 2-51.  248.  [ 1 9 8 2 ] 2 W.L.R. 2 8 8 , 1 L l o y d s R e p . 2 4 0 , 1 A l l E.R. 5 5 6 , Q.B. 5 5 8 .  249.  T h e v i e w o f E v e l e i g h L . J i s more s y m p a t h e t i c to the p o s i t i o n o f t h i r d p a r t i e s t h a n t h a t o f D e n n i n g M.R. o r Kerr L.J. The f o r m e r , r e l y i n g h e a v i l y o n t h e p r o o f o f mens r e a i n e s t a b l i s h i n g w r o n g d o i n g o n t h e p a r t o f a third party, would require t h e conduct to be "contumatious" before finding i t contemptible. The m a j o r i t y d i d n o t e x p r e s s t h e same v i e w .  250.  T h e t e r m was u s e d b y G o f f J . i n I r a q u i Ministry of Defence v. Arcepay S h i p p i n g Co. S.A. (Gillespie Brothers a n d C o . L t d . i n t e r v e n i n g ) ( T h e ANGEL BELL) [ 1 9 8 0 ] 1 L l o y d s R e p . 6 3 2 , 1 A l l E.R. 4 8 0 , 2 W.L.R. 4 8 8 , Q.B. 65 a t p . 488 (W.L.R.) See a l s o Pertamina, s u p r a , f n 66, a t p. 656-7.  251.  Rose, s u p r a , f n 233, a t p.  252.  Ibid.  253.  [1983]  254.  Ibid,  255.  Specifically, P r o j e c t D e v e l o p m e n t C o . L t d . S.A. v . K.M.K. S e c u r i t i e s L t d . a n d O t h e r s [1 982] 1 W.L.R. .1470 [ 1 9 8 3 ] 1 A l l E.R. 4 6 5 , I r a q u i M i n i s t r y o f D e f e n c e ( T h e ANGEL B E L L ) , s u p r a , G a l a x i a M a r i t i m e S.A. ( T h e GRECIAN LEGEND ), supra, a n d C l i p p e r M a r i t i m e Co. L t d . o f Monr o v i a ( T h e MARIE LEONHARDT), s u p r a .  256.  Supra,  257.  Ibid,  258.  See c a s e s c i t e d a t f n 255, s u p r a .  259.  Supra,  260.  Iraqui Ministry o f D e f e n c e ( T h e ANGEL B E L L ) supra, seems t o h a v e b e e n o n e o f t h e e a r l i e s t c a s e s t o h a v e permitted a v a r i a t i o n f o r t h i s purpose. I t i s now quite usual.  :  London:  191.  2 A l l E.R. 6 5 . a t p . 71 .  f n 220. a t p.  160.  f n 2 5 6 , a t p . 162  100  CHAPTER V I I I - COROLLARY  A.  DISCOVERY A  a  RELIEF  plaintiff  with  who was s u i n g a d e f e n d a n t . w h o i n t e n d e d  h i s assets  ecutable  i n order  judgment  requiring  M a r e v a i n j u n c t i o n w o u l d be u s e l e s s t o  unless  the  there  of  those  as w e l l t h e r e  was  a  method  exof  In h i s i n i t i a l  of e q u i t y ,  a p p l i c a t i o n and  the p l a i n t i f f  need o n l y  a s s e t s o f w h i c h he  has  in  affirm  knowledge.  are others.  In  that  t o d e p r i v e h i s opponent o f an  with the guidelines,  existence  Often  deal  t h e d e f e n d a n t t o d i s c l o s e what h i s a s s e t s were and  where they were l o c a t e d . accord  to  y e t another  the English court  a Mareva p l a i n t i f f  to  discovery  if  i t was  extension of the 261  i n 1980 i n A v . C  should  be e n t i t l e d  i n a i d of h i s Mareva o r d e r ; necessary  f o r the  effective  graces  determined  i n a proper  case  i t w o u l d be  proper  operation  of  the  injunction: "... t h e C o u r t s h o u l d , w h e r e n e c e s s a r y , e x e r c i s e i t s powers t o o r d e r d i s c o v e r y or i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s i n order t o ensure t h a t t h e Mareva j u r i s d i c t i o n i s p r o p e r l y exercised...."262  The was f e l t Court  p o w e r t o make s u c h c o r o l l a r y  t o d e r i v e from t h e o r d i n a r y p r o c e d u r a l  of Appeal the f o l l o w i n g year  1 01  i n A.J.  orders  r u l e s but the  Bekhor  and  Co.  263 Ltd.  v.  Bilton  "ancilliary convenient diction  d e s c r i b e d i t as an  orders  as appear  to ensure  i s effective  i n h e r e n t p o w e r t o make  to the Court to  t h a t has  British  v i v a voce  Columbia,  by  under the a u s p i c e s of Rule  juris-  i t equally w i l l  v/here o t h e r w i s e p e r m i t t e d ,  the Rules of 42A  and  meant i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s  the. d i s c l o s u r e o f documents i n E n g l a n d , examination  just  t h a t the e x e r c i s e of the Mareva 264 to achieve i t s purpose."  While  to  be  Court.  apply as  Whether  and  in  sought  (5):  "Where d i f f i c u l t y a r i s e s i n o r a b o u t t h e e x e c u t i o n o r e n f o r c e m e n t o f an o r d e r , t h e c o u r t may make s u c h o r d e r f o r ther attendance of a p a r t y or p e r s o n as i t t h i n k s j u s t . " 2 6 5 [ u n d e r l i n i n g mine]  or under s e v e r a l o t h e r a p p l i c a b l e r u l e s , isdiction, ted  by  Columbia but will  or the inherent j u r -  d i s c o v e r y of documents or persons  the court.  The  Court of Appeal  will  be  permit-  House o r d e r i n t h e 266 referred to e a r l i e r i s an  British  Sekisui  t h e c a u t i o n e x p r e s s e d by Nemetz C . J . B . C . 267 remain a p p l i c a b l e :  in  "The p l a i n t i f f h a s a n i n j u n c t i o n g r a n t e d by M c L a c h l i n J . T h i s h a s l i t t l e v a l u e i f one d o e s n o t know e i t h e r t h e amount o r w h e r e a b o u t s o f t h e s e a s s e t s . I t i s an u n t e n a b l e s i t u a t i o n f o r a l i t i g a n t t o have a c o u r t o r d e r y e t f i n d i t impossible to enforce. I t i s also an u n t e n a b l e s i t u a t i o n t o h a v e p r o s p e c t i v e t h i r d p a r t i e s , eg. f i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s , put i n the p o s i t i o n of 102  example  that  case  b r e a k i n g t h e order because of l a c k of s p e c i f i c i t y , i . e . i d e n t i f i c a t i o n ofthe fund as p a r t o f t h e o r d e r . What, t h e n , c a n be d o n e i n t h e s e p a r t i c u l a r c i r c u m stances? I n my v i e w , t o o r d e r a g e n e r a l e x a m i n a t i o n a t t h i s t i m e would be p r e mature. However, i n o r d e r t o b r e a t h e some l i f e i n t o t h e i n j u n c t i o n , I w o u l d o r d e r t h a t a l i s t o f a s s e t s and t h e i r l o c a t i o n as o f t h e date o f t h e i n j u n c t i o n be s e t o u t i n a f f i d a v i t f o r m b y t h e defendants and d e l i v e r e d t o c o u n s e l f o r the p l a i n t i f f f o r t h w i t h . I n t h e event that the a f f i d a v i t i s unsatisfactory, t h e p l a i n t i f f may a p p l y t o a t r i a l judge i n chambers f o r an o r d e r f o r c r o s s e x a m i n a t i o n on t h e a f f i d a v i t . Inthe e v e n t t h a t no a f f i d a v i t i s d e l i v e r e d w i t h i n two weeks from t h e d a t e o f t h i s judgment, then t h e a p p e l l a n t w i l l have l i b e r t y to re-apply to this d i v i s i o n of the Court."268  As discovery with  a t such  c a n be s e e n ,  an e a r l y  stage,  aligning  the recent English authorities,  sufficiently defendant's  B.  broad  to assist  itself  full  closely  b u t p e r m i t t e d an o r d e r  the p l a i n t i f f  in  locating  the  assets.  ANTON P I L L E R ORDERS  Shortly the  the court refused  U.K.  fashioned order:  Court  of  another  an o r d e r ,  defendant premises documents  to that or  Appeal,  potent  after  the f i r s t  again  l e d by  remedy known a s  usually also granted  permit  a plaintiff  he m i g h t i n s p e c t , other  evidence  i 1 03  Mareva Lord  an  cases, Denning,  Anton  Piller  ex p a r t e , e n j o i n i n g a  t o enter  the  r e m o v e o r make f o r purposes  defendant's copies of  of  pending  litigation. discovery where vital  Described and  "something of a 269  injunction,"  m a t e r i a l so a s  the  hybrid  i t i s designed  there i s a serious r i s k  application, before  as  to defeat  between  for  instances  t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t may  destroy  the ends of j u s t i c e b e f o r e  w i t h n o t i c e to the defendant,  c o u l d be  any  brought  court.  EMI  R e c o r d s L t d . v.  v.  Manufacturing  following  Following an e a r l i e r d e c i s i o n i n 1975, 270 Pandit, the Court i n Anton P i l l e r K.G. 271 Processes  Ltd.  and  Others  set out  the  requirements:  (i)  t h e a p p l i c a n t must h a v e a v e r y  (ii)  the p o t e n t i a l  s t r o n g prima  facie  case,  o r a c t u a l damage t o h i s i n t e r e s t s must  be  c l e a r evidence  in  very serious, ( i i i ) t h e r e must be his possession  i n c r i m i n a t i n g documents o r  that there i s a real or  destroy  pares  Yusif  v.  the p l a i n t i f f prima  facie  on  doubt  that i t 275 applicant.  materials before 272 made.  The  273 such  case.  to the p r a c t i c e  possibility  such  c a n be  Salama  t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t has  t h a t he may any  dispose  application  of  inter  in  a d o p t e d a somewhat l e s s o n e r o u s t e s t  for  applications,  "piling  provides  several years  and  later  While  as  same C o u r t  things,  reducing  ( i ) to simply  a  L a w t o n L . J . was Piller  even l a t e r t o r e f e r 274 on M a r e v a , " there i s no  an a d d i t i o n a l a i d  1 04  to  the  Mareva  The as  great  an i n t e r v e n t i o n on a d e f e n d a n t ' s  Mareva. recently  advent of Anton P i l l e r i s a t  Mr. J u s t i c e B r o w n e - W i l k i n s o n  legal  least  rights  o f t h e U.K. H i g h  as  Court  spoke o f t h e extreme n a t u r e o f t h e former: "I would emphasize t h a t t h e e f f e c t o f a n o r d e r i f made i s f a r - r e a c h i n g . F i r s t , a d e f e n d a n t h a s h a d no o p p o r t u n i t y t o present h i scase t ot h e court o r t o b r i n g matters t othe c o u r t ' s a t t e n t i o n which might a l t e r the c o u r t ' s view of t h e matter. I t i s an extreme t h i n g f o r a c o u r t t o make a s e v e r e o r d e r w i t h o u t e v e n g i v i n g t h e defendant an o p p o r t u n i t y t o be h e a r d . Secondly, the execution of t h e o r d e r i n v o l v e s an i n v a s i o n o f the r i g h t s o f p r i v a c y : t o t h e extent that the j u r i s d i c t i o n i sexercised i t i s incompatible w i t h the view t h a t a n E n g l i s h m a n ' s home i s h i s c a s t l e . T h i r d , i fnot very c a r e f u l l y watched, i t i s capable of being abused. A p l a i n t i f f e n g a g e d i n t r a d e who o b t a i n s an ( A n t o n P i l l e r ) o r d e r e n a b l i n g h i m to e n t e r t h e business premises of a c o m p e t i t o r and search t h a t c o m p e t i t o r ' s d o c u m e n t s may o b t a i n a q u i t e u n f a i r and w r o n g f u l commercial advant a g e . ..."276  The is  granted  appropriate fringement  required  proceedings,  not  of rights pertaining  Substantial incrimination in  when  d e v e l o p m e n t now seems e n t r e n c h e d a n d  i n such  Canadian  courts  simply those r e l a t e d to intellectual  questions concerning  by t h e c o u r t s i n t h i s 1 05  in  property.  following  self-  statutorily  have y e t t o be d e a l t country  any  to i n 277  the privilege against  i n s t a n c e s , w h i l e answered 278  p a r t i n t h e U n i t e d Kingdom,  seriously  by  with  t h e welcome  arrival  o f the Canadian Charter 279 year.  last  C.  o f Human R i g h t s a n d F r e e d o m s  DEFAULT JUDGMENT  Mareva temporary  remedy  orders,  expires  court.  upon f i n a l  f o rhearing  i s by i t s v e r y  i n keeping  with a l l  disposition  I n the ordinary case,  matter ing  which,  relief  a plaintiff  and a t t r i a l ,  a final  would normally  entitled ant's  fall  assets  the Mareva  order  i s made d e a l -  plaintiff  against the  t h e defendant f a i l s t o appear t o t h e  o f summons,  i n the o r d i n a r y case the p l a i n t i f f  court i n the appropriate  d i c t i o n s however, as i n B r i t i s h not  a v a i l a b l e where t h e w r i t  injunction judgment, In  so d o i n g  of  order.  writ  of  is  defend-  by v i r t u e  w o u l d move t h e c o u r t f o r . j u d g m e n t i n d e f a u l t p u r s u a n t Rules  the  The i n t e r l o c u t o r y  retained within the jurisdiction  If initial  by  proceeds t o s e t the  and t h e s u c c e s s f u l  t o p r o c e e d b y way o f e x e c u t i o n  a  interlocutory  of the case  w i t h a l l i s s u e s between t h e p a r t i e s .  orders  nature  and  i n order  a plaintiff  Columbia,  In  most  juris-  the procedure i s  i s endorsed w i t h a c l a i m f o r an  t o s u c c e s s f u l l y apply  would have t o abandon h i s  he w o u l d r u n a r i s k  pose o f h i s a s s e t s  forum. 280  to the  f o r default injunction.  that the defendant might  t h e moment t h e i n j u n c t i o n was r e m o v e d .  106  dis-  In Managements  S. A.,  iated  Goff,  when  281  Stewart this  J.  C h a r t e r i n g L t d . v.  "catch-22" s i t u a t i o n  ( a s he  t h e n was)  c o u r t s m u s t h a v e c o n t r o l o v e r t h e i r own order  be  was  determined  &^  O  allevthat  processes,  j u d g m e n t by d e f a u l t w i t h o u t r e q u i r i n g  injunction f i r s t  C  he  as  would  that the  Mareva  ceded:  "The p u r p o s e o f a M a r e v a i n j u n c t i o n i s t o p r e v e n t a defendant from r e moving h i s a s s e t s from the j u r i s d i c t i o n so as t o p r e v e n t t h e p l a i n t i f f from o b t a i n i n g the f r u i t s of h i s judgment; from t h i s i t f o l l o w s t h a t the p o l i c y u n d e r l y i n g the Mareva j u r i s d i c t i o n c a n o n l y be g i v e n e f f e c t t o i f t h e C o u r t has power t o c o n t i n u e the Mareva i n j u n c t i o n a f t e r judgment, i n a i d of execution."282 T h i s would ed  case  t o be  not o n l y p e r m i t t i n g a p l a i n t i f f  judgment  without relinquishing  tending  the  ecution  after  instances assisted  judgment.  may  well  attempted  for  permitting the  l o c a t i o n and  only  report-  obtain  default  further 283 creditors.  extending  faithful  d o c t r i n e to remain v a l u e o f a s s e t s and  107  example  corollary  that of  exsuch  court-  relief  to  t h e c o u r t s h a v e so  far  to o r i g i n a l  those extentions  ex-  successful  I t i s a r g u a b l e however,  Mareva i n j u n c t i o n s ,  to remain  permit  present a  preferences to  applicants  to  the only  h i s Mareva o r d e r but a l s o  e f f e c t of the order to  In  enable  appear  Mareva p r i n c i p l e s  which  effective.  will  by  legitimately  Determining  preventing a defendant  the from  subverting as  is  permitting  judgment It  without  a deserving p l a i n t i f f  t o note  specifically  t h a t t h e new New B r u n s w i c k  provides  As frequent use o f these  that the i n j u n c t i o n might that execution  competing among  p a r t i e s and t h e i r  or similar setting.  legal  Aside  interested creditors  more  r i g h t s w i l l be p l a c e d from  i n the  issues same  secured  orders  of  action, who h a v e  a g a i n s t t h e same d e f e n d a n t a n d h i s a s s e t s ,  Mareva. p l a i n t i f f  and a t h i r d  a Mareva p l a i n t i f f  defendant's  o r i n an  a s s e t s t o be a r r e s t e d .  hand o f e q u i t y , s o l u t i o n s w i l l u n d o u b t e d l y  G u i d e d by t h e be  found.  a  Admiralty  a n d a s e c o n d c l a i m a n t who  1 08  or  p a r t y who h a s a l s o s e c u r e d  M a r e v a o r d e r a g a i n s t t h e same d e f e n d a n t ,  the  continue  one c a n e n v i s a g e  may s o o n b e f a c e d w i t h t w o M a r e v a p l a i n t i f f s  context,  practice  proceedings  courts  a  default  c o u n s e l make  supplementary r i g h t s ,  s i t u a t i o n s where e q u a l  preference  enter  284  taken.  another  to  abandonment o f t h e M a r e v a i t s e l f .  f o r c e beyond judgment i n o r d e r  m i g h t be  in  altogether are logical elaborations  requiring  i s of interest  rule in  the principle  causes even  FOOTNOTES CHAPTER  VIII  261.  A v . C [ 1 9 8 0 ] 2 A l l E.R. 3 4 7 , 2 L l o y d s R e p . 2 0 0 . The jurisdiction t o make s u c h o r d e r s was a p p a r e n t l y first recognised i n L o n d o n &^ C o u n t y Securities v. Caplan where a n o r d e r f o r d i s c o v e r y was made n o t a g a i n s t t h e defendant b u t a g a i n s t a b a n k i n w h i c h i t was b e l i e v e d the defendant's a s s e t s were h e l d . That case and a C o u r t o f A p p e a l (U.K.) d e c i s i o n , M e d i t e r r a n i a R a f f i n a i a S i c i l i a n P e t r o l i S . p . a . v . M a b a n a f t G.m.b.H. a r e b o t h unreported b u t r e f e r r e d t o by t h e C A . i n t h e s u b s e quent c a s e o f B a n k e r s T r u s t Co. v . S h a p i r a [ 1 9 8 0 ] 1 W.L.R. 1 2 7 3 , 3 A l l E.R. 3 5 3 . , a t p . 1280 (W.L.R.).  262.  Ibid,  263.  [ 1 9 8 1 ] 2 W.L.R. 6 0 1 , 1 Q.B. 9 2 3 .  264.  I b i d , p e r A c k n e r L . J . a t p . 576 ( A l l E . R . ) .  265.  Of t h e B r i t i s h  266.  S u p r a , f n 16.  267.  S e e p . 80 o f t h i s  268.  Ibid,  269.  Snell's Principles of Equity,  270.  [1975]  271.  [1976] Ch. 55.  272.  Ibid,  273.  Y o u s i f v . Salama  274.  I n CBS U n i t e d K i n g d o m L t d . v . L a m b e r t s u p r a , f n 2 3 4 , a t p . 749 (W.L.R.)  275.  Ibid. S e e a l s o J o h n s o n v . L Ik A P h i l a t e l i e s L t d . [ 1 9 8 1 ] F.S.R. 286, where one o f t h e f i r s t such o r d e r s including b o t h M a r e v a a n d A n t o n P i l l e r p r o v i s i o n s was made b y G o f f J . i n t h e Q.B. D i v i s i o n . The f o r m o f t h e order i s a c t u a l l y s e t out i n the Report.  276.  Thermax L i m i t e d v . S c h o t t I n d u s t r i a l [ 1 9 8 1 ] F.S.R. 2 8 9 , a t p . 2 9 1 - 2 .  a t p . 351 ( A l l E.R.)  a t pp.  1 L l o y d s Rep. 4 9 1 ,  Columbia  text,  2 A l l E.R.  565,  Supreme C o u r t R u l e s .  supra.  6-7. s u p r a , f n 3, a t p .  649.  1 W.L.R. 3 0 2 . *  a t p. 62. [1980]  109  1 W.L.R. 1 5 4 0 , 3 A l l E.R. and  Glass  405.  Another  Limited  277.  There a r e many e x a m p l e s b u t s e e l e n g t h y d i s c u s s i o n o f the p r a c t i c e r e c e n t l y by t h e F e d e r a l C o u r t o f Canada (Appeal D i v i s i o n ) i nNintendo of America, I n c . v. Coinex Video Games I n c . e t a l (1983) (Unreported, December 3 0 , 1 9 8 2 , A - 1 2 7 3 - 8 2 , Ottawa). S e e a l s o CBS U n i t e d Kingdom L t d . v . Lambert and A n o t h e r , s u p r a , f n 234, a n d d i s c u s s i o n , s u p r a , a t p . 87 o f t h i s t e x t .  278.  S e e Rank F i l m D i s t r i b u t o r s L t d . v . V i d e o I n f o r m a t i o n C e n t r e ( a f i r m ) [ 1 9 8 0 ] 3 W.L.R. 387 a n d [ 1 9 8 1 ] 2 W.L.R. 668.  279.  The right t o be p r o t e c t e d by t h e g i v i n g of incriminating evidence against oneself has constitutional bases and i s a f f o r d e d by t h e Canada Evidence A c t . The e f f e c t o f t h e C a n a d i a n Charter provisions have y e t t o be f u l l y t e s t e d . See Chapter IX, s u p r a , f o r d i s c u s s i o n o f some o t h e r a s p e c t s o f t h e Canadian Charter i n the context of the Mareva injunction.  280.  British  281.  [ 1 9 8 0 ] 1 W.L.R. 4 6 0 , 2 L l o y d s R e p . 1 1 6 , 1 A l l E.R.  282.  Ibid,  283.  See d i s c u s s i o n , s u p r a ,  284.  See Appendix I V .  C o l u m b i a Supreme C o u r t  R u l e s , R u l e 17.  a t p . 117 ( L l o y d s R e p . ) . a t pp.  11 0  96-7.  718.  CHAPTER I X  -  The lished been  i n Canada; approved  provinces four  remedy  would appear t o  be  estab-  the guidelines f o ri t s a v a i l a b i l i t y  have  g e n e r a l l y by s e n i o r c o u r t s o f s e v e r a l o f t h e  a n d chamber  years.  caution  THE CANADIAN CONTEXT  While  i sstill  j u d g e s have been g r a n t i n g i n some p a r t s o f t h i s  being  country  for  greater  e x e r c i s e d than i s t h e case i n others,  our  c o u r t s have had n e i t h e r t h e h e r i t a g e n o r  the  English  court  orders  to  y e t develop  a  experience  distinctly  of  Canadian  jurisprudence.  A.  THE FEDERAL STATE Some  amined cases  questions  still  remain t o  be  ex-  w i t h a deeper a n a l y s i s than has been apparent i n t h e reported  sovereign  t o date.  state  with  The b i r t h p l a c e o f t h e M a r e v a was a unitary  political  judicial  structures.  The d o c t r i n e a r o s e  was  o f s t a t u t o r y o r common l a w r e m e d i e s a v a i l a b l e t o  a dearth  creditors  i n a legal  and  i n s i t u a t i o n s where d e b t o r s  s y s t e m where  sought t o a v o i d  there  their  liabilities.  Those  i wealth  of the  British  w h i c h have embraced t h e Mareva p r i n c i p l e ,  Australia frameworks have  reaches  particularly,  have  current p o l i t i c a l  considerably different  developed,  as  we i  d e b t o r - c r e d i t o r problems.  Canada and  than t h e i r motherland  have seen,  other  ways  With c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  111  Common-  of  and legal and  solving  distribution  of  b o t h l e g i s l a t i v e and  provincial  and  j u r i d i c a l powers d i v i d e d between  federal jurisdictions,  w i t h i n the Canadian  context  different  i t is  have to  permitted  move t h e i r  drastic  able  assets  i n one  examined  f r o m one  necessary province  i n another?  have  while  I n two  province in  a  the Canadian  to another,  federated  courts wish  i s such  nation  are u s u a l l y r e c i p r o c a l l y  enforcewe  level),  Mareva  i n j u n c t i o n s have been s u s t a i n e d where t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s  absence  from  the  province  or the removal  been t o another Canadian  trial  a  where  of the court of appeal d e c i s i o n s  ( a n d many more a t t h e  to  Kingdom.  M a r e v a s t o i s s u e a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t s who  remedy  judgments  example,  that  c o n s i d e r a t i o n s ought  be a d d r e s s e d t h a n i s t h e c a s e i n t h e U n i t e d  For  possible  the  of h i s assets  has  simply  jurisdiction. 285  In defendant and  spent  Humphreys  some c o n s i d e r a b l e  c o u l d n o t be  v.  Buraglia,  time i n B r i t i s h  l o c a t e d o r s e r v e d . r e a d i l y i n New  the Columbia  Brunswick.  286  In the Manitoba  c a s e , F e i g e l m a n v. A e t n a ,  an  economic  measure wished  as  i t had done e a r l i e r  iness i n the Province have i n i t i a t e d t h e i r judgment paid.  against In  consideration  to close i t s o f f i c e  i n Ontario,  and  o f Quebec where, a c t i o n and  appear  of  t h e s e two  should  Winnipeg,  the p l a i n t i f f s  in their  be e x e c u t e d  cases  t o have been g i v e n 11 2  in  as  t o re-group i t s bus-  succeeded  the defendant might  neither  the defendant  does to  any what  claim,  any  upon  and  detailed might  be  described  as  Canadian  a practical  and E n g l i s h  c o n t e x t u a l d i f f e r e n c e between  situations.'  That  the  i s not t o say t h a t a  M a r e v a o r d e r s h o u l d be r e f u s e d i n e v e r y c i r c u m s t a n c e w h e r e defendant for  c a n be r e a d i l y  even  court  absence  to  which  requirement and  weigh  the application  heavily,  i n another Canadian  province  the geographic j u r i s d i c t i o n  f o r entitlement.  permitting within  from  located  The f a c t  i n measuring  the defendant  i s made i s n o t  a  s h o u l d weigh  the r i s k  a  of  the  necessary however,  to the p l a i n t i f f i n  to continue to deal with h i s assets  Canada.  The  British  Columbia  appeal decision i n  287 Sekisui  was s e t more i n t h e m o u l d o f e a r l y  where t h e d e f e n d a n t country same  English  cases  had been n o r m a l l y r e s i d e n t o u t s i d e o f t h e  as opposed t o another p o l i t i c a l  division within  the  nation. 288 Lord  suggested defendant's  that  Denning  a c o u r t might  assets t o another  e i t h e r c o u l d be r e g i s t e r e d  in  Pertamina  earlier  not enjoin the transfer jurisdiction  i n which  o r e n f o r c e d when he  of  a  judgment  said:  " . . . ( T h e g o o d s ) a r e g o i n g t o be r e m o v e d t o Hamburg w h e r e t h e y w i l l be j u s t a s much l i a b l e t o s e i z u r e a s i n E n g l a n d , a n d p r o b a b l y more s o , a s t h e p r o c e s s i s more u n d e r s t o o d a n d acceptable there."289  Only  i n a v e r y r e c e n t c a s e , as y e t u n r e p o r t e d , has a c o u r t i n  113  this  country  s e i z e d u p o n w h a t c o u l d be a s i g n i f i c a n t  in declining  to simply  J.  B r i t i s h Columbia 290  Supreme C o u r t i n Deane  ( 1 970)  set aside  of  the  Corporation enjoining Columbia close  copy  the E n g l i s h  Ltd.  a defendant from removing  practice.  an  commenting  B.C.  operations  Meredith v.  Lds  parte  i t s assets  to Manitoba, recognizing/the r i g h t  its  ex  factor  from  order British  o f t h e company t o  f o r v a l i d economic  reasons  in  that "The p u r p o s e o f a M a r e v a i n j u n c t i o n i s t o p r e v e n t a d e f e n d a n t f r o m ' s t u l t i f y i n g any judgment....' before such i s g i v e n . The movement o f a s s e t s f r o m p l a c e t o p l a c e , c a r r i e d out i n the normal course of the d e f e n d a n t ' s b u s i n e s s , does not p r o v i d e the f a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n f o r the g r a n t i n g of such relief."291  The  l e a r n e d j u d g e d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e p u r p o s e o f t h e move  not t o d e f e a t ment  the p l a i n t i f f ' s  obtained  enforceable  in  this  Province  this  also result counsel  solely  i s one  would  be  judg-  reciprocally  of very  few  instances  i s s u e has been d i r e c t l y f a c e d and w h i l e from the f a c t  t h a t t h e m o t i o n was  representing both p a r t i e s ,  practice,  n o t e d t h a t any  i n Manitoba.  This where  c l a i m and  was  such  fully  an e x c e p t i o n  r e l e v a n t c o n s i d e r a t i o n s ought  f o r such o c c a s i o n s .  w i c k and M a n i t o b a c a s e s ,  Clearly,  orders  11 4  i t  may  argued  by  to the  usual  n o t t o be  i n b o t h t h e New  were v i g o r o u s l y  seen  left  Bruns-  resisted.  B.  THE  CHARTER OF  RIGHTS  Since Canadian  scene,  the  and  challenges i n areas  application entrenched regulated  t e s t e d i n the c r i m i n a l  of c i v i l  come more s l o w l y . however, rights  contests  are  to  the  Freedoms  law  field  p r a c t i c e and p r o c e d u r e  will  By v i r t u e o f i t s i n t e n d e d  wide  b a s e d upon i n f r i n g e m e n t s  bound t o f o l l o w i n  most  fields  of of  conduct.  Mobility 6 of the Charter, to  Mareva  I t s e f f e c t on e s t a b l i s h e d j u r i s -  i s rapidly being  undoubtedly  of  t h e C a n a d i a n C h a r t e r o f R i g h t s and 292  h a s a l s o made i t s d e b u t . prudence  arrival  e s t a b l i s h e d by s e c t i o n  c o u l d w e l l p r o v i d e an a r e n a  the a p p l i c a b i l i t y  of i n t e r p r o v i n c i a l  rights,  of a Mareva order  movement.  for  i n certain  challenge situations  Section 6 provides:  (1) E v e r y c i t i z e n o f Canada has t h e r i g h t t o e n t e r , r e m a i n i n and l e a v e Canada. (2) E v e r y c i t i z e n o f Canada and e v e r y p e r s o n who h a s t h e s t a t u s o f a p e r m a n e n t r e s i d e n t of Canada has t h e r i g h t ( a ) t o move t o a n d t a k e up r e s i d e n c e i n any p r o v i n c e ; and (b) t o p u r s u e t h e g a i n i n g o f a l i v l i h o o d i n any p r o v i n c e . ( 3 ) The r i g h t s s p e c i f i e d are subject t o :  i n subsection  (2)  (a) any laws o r p r a c t i c e s o f g e n e r a l application i n force i n a province other than those which d i s c r i m i n a t e among p e r s o n s p r i m a r i l y o n t h e b a s i s of province of present or previous r e s i d e n c e , and 11 5  (b) any laws p r o v i d i n g f o r r e a s o n a b l e r e s i d e n c y r e q u i r e m e n t s as a q u a l i f i c a t i o n f o r t h e r e c e i p t of p u b l i c l y provided s o c i a l s e r v i c e s . [ u n d e r l i n i n g mine]  While reception  i n 1976  Covenant that  on  Civil  concern  cipally  o s t e n s i b l y d e r i v e d from  o f the 1966 and  United  Political  Nations 293  Rights,  International  it  about economic b a l k a n i z a t i o n of  prompted  inclusion  i n ' the  Charter  Canadian  is  probable  Canada of  prin-  provisions  r e l a t e d to i n t e r p r o v i n c i a l m o b i l i t y . I n common w i t h s e c t i o n s 3 and Charter,  the  first  c i t i z e n s of Canada. is  likely  sub-section  extends  23 of  rights  But w i t h r e s p e c t t o s u b - s e c t i o n  t h a t the c o u r t s w i l l continue  to  conferring  p e r s o n s o n l y and  physical  only  mobility rights  on  to  (2), i t  interpret  o p e n i n g p h r a s e s as e x c l u d i n g l e g a l p e r s o n s such as 294 tions,  the.  the  corporanatural  l i m i t i n g them t o t h o s e w i t h f o r m a l s t a t u s as  c i t i z e n s o r permanent r e s i d e n t s . I t i s arguable operate  to p r o h i b i t a defendant,  a n o t h e r p a r t of the c o u n t r y , must l e a v e h i s house, While  actual  physical  t h a t a Mareva o r d e r intending to  relocate  from e f f e c t i v e l y d o i n g  bank a c c o u n t s and o t h e r a s s e t s movement,  taking  up  could  so i f he behind.  employment,  s t a r t i n g o r e x p a n d i n g a b u s i n e s s , e t c . would be u n a f f e c t e d the i n j u n c t i o n ,  i t s p r a c t i c a l e f f e c t c o u l d have t h a t  11 6  in  by  result.  Another Charter,  bears  brief  provision,  section  e x a m i n a t i o n as w e l l .  7  of  the  While the  new  C h a r t e r does not i n c l u d e the language of the p r e v i o u s D i e f e n 295 baker B i l l of R i g h t s concerning the " r i g h t to the enjoy296 ment o f p r o p e r t y a n d n o t t o be deprived thereof," the statutory  safeguard  legislators  may  the  States  United  It  may  be  i n t h e 1982  C h a r t e r chosen  s u c c e s s f u l l y a v o i d problems 297  argued  rights  i s one  of the fundamental  person  i n Canada but i t i s u n l i k e l y  of  "due  in  process."  individual  freedoms  Canadian  encountered  i n h e r e n t i n the phrase that protection  by  property  afforded to  every  an argument e x i s t s  that  t h e M a r e v a p r o c e s s u n l a w f u l l y d e p r i v e s such e n j o y m e n t so l o n g as t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l except  in  justice"  protection  accordance  " n o t t o be d e p r i v e d  w i t h the  principles  of  fundamental  remains. i  Certainly,  once  committees  responsible  f o r p r o c e d u r a l r u l e changes f o r m u l a t e statements of such  as  New  Brunswick  h a s d o n e and  M a r e v a i s n o t an a t t a c h m e n t is  suggested w i l l  C.  thereof  i t is  process at a l l ,  practice  appreciated  that  arguments such  as  With a p p r o v a l of the Mareva p r i n c i p l e  in  c a r r y even  less  weight.  M U L T I P L E REMEDIES  Canada,  unpaid  creditors  midable  course  of  action  had  o p e n e d t o them  to ensure  11 7  recovery  another from  fortheir  recalcitrant  debtors.  I t s need i n t h e U n i t e d  Canada  was  undoubted  as i n s t a n c e s  relief  was  unavailable  imagine, place,  with  regularly  i n any o t h e r  extentions  Kingdom and i n  form.  arose  It is  of the p r i n c i p l e  now  v/here  hard  to  firmly  in  how t h e r u l e i n L i s t e r  v . S t u b b s c a n be s a i d t o r e m a i n 298 of any r e a l s u b s t a n c e t h i s f u l l c e n t u r y later.  We adian  courts  Mareva  have seen t h a t  t h e E n g l i s h and  have been ad idem i n t h e i r  restraint  even  when o t h e r  Can-  r e f u s a l t o deny  remedies  may  the  have  been  available  and i n Canada, t h a t i s s u e has been d e a l t w i t h i n 299 300 several cases. W h i l e a t f i r s t d e n i e d i n New B r u n s w i c k ,  the  b e t t e r view e x p r e s s e d s i n c e has been t h a t  suit, and  several each  merits  where  f o r m s o f remedy may b e p o t e n t i a l l y  should  normally  without regard  impetus  be g r a n t e d on i t s  i t was u n s u c c e s s f u l l y ships  own  available particular  t o the convenience of others.  f o r t h e v i e w came f r o m B r a n d o n J .  arresting  i n any t y p i c a l  argued t h a t as  i n Admiralty  actions  i n THE RENA the  i n rem was  to  t h e c l e a r d i s t i n c t i o n between t h e s e two p r o c e d u r e s by  i t s uniqueness  T h e r e i s now no d o u b t 302  helps  to  of  available,  Mareva i n j u n c t i o n should  case  K  remedy  the  the  not.  Initial 301  illustrate  as but  another  d i s t i n c t i o n between t h e E n g l i s h and C a n a d i a n s i t u a t i o n s . In contrast the  to h i s English  counterpart,  C a n a d i a n c r e d i t o r p r i o r t o M a r e v a i n many c a s e s h a d  a l t e r n a t i v e c o u r s e s open t o him.  118  F o r the major p a r t ,  other those  courses  are  preferred  still to  considering alternate view  accept  whether remedies  more  Mareva  open t o him b u t o u r c o u r t s , the  English  i n t h e more f r e q u e n t are a v a i l a b l e ,  strictly  doctrine.  view  for  fully  circumstance  when  court  application  discretion  convenient. Canadian  be e x e r c i s e d  What m u s t be g u a r d e d  context,  enforcing  should  is  i t s  i f i t  of  on  is  the  usage,  just  and  a g a i n s t however, w i t h i n  utilisation  for  the  the  purpose  a n o t h e r r e m e d y w h i c h t u r n s o u t t o be  That would,  might  when u s e o f a n o t h e r remedy i s  p r e c l u d e d f a c t u a l l y o r e v e n by s e v e r e r e s t r i c t i o n s Mareva  appears,  without  the Canadian  the necessity Obviously,  i t  of  unavailable.  i t i s s u b m i t t e d , be a n i m p r o p e r e x t e n t i o n o f  the  p r i n c i p l e a n d a s one w r i t e r h a s p u t i t w i t h a n o t h e r d e s i g n :  "... i t w o u l d seem t o be r e f o r m u l a t i n g t h e u n a v a i l a b l e remedy by p r e s s i n g t h e Mareva procedure i n t o s e r v i c e merely for the sake of expanding i t . " 3 0 3  D.  UNIFORMITY  Two ing  the  Firstly, they  have  application the  Canada  of  the  Mareva  itself.  to  avoid  tendency  i n d i g e s t i o n when  11  9  of  sampling  than  guidelines  T h i s u n d o u b t e d l y i s due  conservative  doctrine.  country  been i n England t o adopt not o n l y the  traditionally  judiciary  comments c a n be made c o n c e r n -  c o u r t s have been s l o w e r i n t h i s  but the p r i n c i p l e the  in  final  i n part  the any  to  Canadian foreign  concoction;  i t s uncertain extentions  dimensions would provide being  a second e x p l a n a t i o n  trial  courts, will  judgments probing  certainly  may  simply  are receiving  Whether,  converts  everything  the  definition  of  regard  to  the  but  he h a s i n t o t h e f o r m o f r e a d y  cash  i n Mareva e v o l u t i o n .  i t may  there  the outer  be a  be i m p o r t a n t  for  measure  i n this  national of  having chapter business  uniformity  dimensions of the p r i n c i p l e  i n each of t h e p r o v i n c e s  judgments  higher  assets  s a k e o f some c e r t a i n t y that  of  include a defendant  t o some o f t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o u t l i n e d  organizations  helpful  having  found  of the doctrine  n o t show a n y s i g n s o f d i s p o s i n g o f h i s  for  applied  sanction  that extention should  Secondly, regard  the  of the extentions  continue.  may p r o v e t h e n e x t t e s t  and  f o r the caution  that exploratory expressions  of l i m i t s  Canadian s i t u a t i o n , who  final  exercised.  Now in  a n d i t s unknown  of the four appeal  t o t h i s end.  1 20  and t e r r i t o r i e s .  The  to  in be  first  c o u r t s we h a v e e x a m i n e d a r e n o t  FOOTNOTES CHAPTER I X 285.  S u p r a , f n 147.  286.  S u p r a , f n 149.  287.  S u p r a , f n 16.  288.  S u p r a , f n 66.  289.  I b i d a t p. 335  290.  Unreported, Registry.  291.  Ibid,  292.  H e r e a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o as " t h e C h a r t e r . " I t i s P a r t I (ss. 1-34) o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n A c t 1982 w h i c h i n t u r n i s S c h e d u l e B o f t h e Canada A c t , 1 9 8 2 , c . 11 ( U . K . ) . Approved by t h e C a n a d i a n H o u s e o f Commons o n December 2, 1981 a n d t h e S e n a t e o n December 8, 1 9 8 1 , i t r e c e i v e d r o y a l a s s e n t a n d came i n t o f o r c e a s o f A p r i l 1 7 , 1 9 8 2 .  293.  U.N. GAOR S u p p . 1 6 , U.N. Doc. A / 6 3 1 6 , i n f o r c e i n C a n a d a A u g u s t 1.9, 1 976. A r t i c l e 12 ( 1 ) t h e r e o f p r o v i d e s t h a t "Everyone l a w f u l l y w i t h i n t h e t e r r i t o r y of a state shall, within that t e r r i t o r y , have t h e r i g h t t o l i b e r t y o f movement a n d f r e e d o m t o c h o o s e h i s r e s i d e n c e . "  294.  S e e a n e x a m p l e o f t h e a p p r o a c h t a k e n by t h e A l b e r t a Q.B. i n Southam I n c . v . D i r e c t o r o f I n v e s t i g a t i o n s and R e s e a r c h o f t h e Combines I n v e s t i g a t i o n B r a n c h [1982] 4 W.W.R. 6 7 3 . C f . L a s k i n , J.B. " M o b i l i t y R i g h t s Under the C h a r t e r " i n ( 1 9 8 2 ) 4 Supreme C o u r t L . R. 89 a t p. 90-1 .  295.  Of 1 9 6 0 ; R.S.C. 1 9 7 0 , A p p e n d i x I I I .  296.  Section 7 reads i n f u l l : "Everyone has t h e r i g h t t o l i f e , l i b e r t y and s e c u r i t y of t h e p e r s o n and t h e r i g h t n o t t o be d e p r i v e d thereof except i n accordance with the p r i n c i p l e s of fundamental justice."  297.  See d i s c u s s i o n supra, Chapter I V , a t pp. 46-9, c o n c e r n i n g c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a t t a c k s on t h e A m e r i c a n pretrial attachment procedures a l l e g i n g breach of the 14th Amendment s a f e g u a r d o f "due p r o c e s s . " \  (A.E.R.). SCBC C 8 3 1 0 8 2 ,  a t p. 2 ( R e a s o n s  March  17,  1983, Vancouver  f o r Judgment).  1 21  298.  Lister, c i t e d supra, a t f n 20. C e r t a i n l y fewer and fewer c o u r t s r e f e r t o t h e d e c i s i o n t h a n was the case when e a r l y M a r e v a j u r i s d i c t i o n was b e i n g t e s t e d .  299.  S u p r a , C h a p t e r V, p. 5 8 .  300.  See I r v i n g O i l L i m i t e d v . B i o r n s t a d , B i o r n ^& Co. e t a l ( 1 9 8 1 ) 35 N.B.R. ( 2 d ) 2 6 5 , 88 A.P.R. 265 (N.B.Q.B.)  301.  [1979]  302.  Not o n l y was there i n i t . i a l doubt, there was some confusion when L o r d D e n n i n g f r o m t i m e t o t i m e would refer t o t h e M a r e v a a s " a c t i n g i n rem l i k e t h e a r r e s t of a s h i p does." Subsequent d e c i s i o n s have s a t i s f a c t o r i l y and w i t h f i n a l i t y c l a r i f i e d t h a t t h e Mareva o r d e r acts i n p e r s o n a m o n l y a n d i n no way a t t a c h e s t o a s s e t s as t h e A d m i r a l t y a r r e s t p r o c e d u r e s d o .  303.  Rose,  1 A l l E.R. 3 9 7 , Q.B.  supra,  377 (Q.B.)  f n 233, a t p. 182.  1 22  CHAPTER  X  One s t a n d i n g  b a c k  w r o u g h t some  by  any  c a s e s , o r  a  m o d e l .  newer  t o  s t a r t  g u i d e s a d o p t  f o r  i s  i n c o r p o r a t e  d e t e r m i n i n g  M a r e v a  d o c t r i n e  1983  a s  was  and  e f f e c t i v e  a n t e c e n d e n t s  a  much  p r i o r  a r e  a s  i s  i s  o f  o r  i s  t h e  i n  a  In s e c o n d  a d j u s t m e n t s t u r n  one  i t  o f  c o u r s e  i n  e f f e c t s  i n n o v a t i o n .  t o  t o  f o r  1975  i t s  and  i n  R e l i a n c e  a n d  a l l  i n up  the  b e s t  one  p r a c t i c a l  e x c e p t i o n  s h o u l d  t o  t h e s e  c r e a t i o n  i t  h a s  e v o l u t i o n  i s  p r o v e n  f r a i l u p o n  A p p r o v a l  h a s  and them  may as  s o o n  i n  e s s e n t i a l law.  s o u r c e s  n e v e r t h e l e s s  g r e a t  an  be  o f  g e n e r a l  as  d e b t o r - c r e d i t o r  Its  gone may  b e e n  t h e m -  e v e n  be  g i v e n  to  made  i n  i m p l e m e n t .  A d j u s t m e n t s  d o c t r i n e .  c h a n g e s  wisdom the  r e v i s i o n s  e x p e r i e n c e  no  u n d o u b t e d l y  s h a b b y .  n e e d e d  e x t e n t i o n s  at  o r  m a n d a t o r y  i n v e n t i o n  m e a s u r e  a l t o g e t h e r .  d e s c r i b e d  make  n a t u r e  J u s t i f i c a t i o n  i t  t i m e  i s  f u t u r e .  p r e s c r i p t s .  s e l v e s  i t  t h e  t h e r e  d i s c o v e r y t o  P r a c t i c a l  The t h e  s e c o n d  n e c e s s a r y  S o m e t i m e s  t h e  a  p o s s i b l e  SCRIPTUM  c o n c e d e  i n v e n t i o n ,  anew.  i n  POST  must  l o o k i n g  new  i t  e d i t i o n  a n d  and  -  w h i c h T h e y  u l t i m a t e l y  o f  i n v o l v e d .  T h i s  h a v e  a r e  now  b e e n t a k i n g  r e n o v a t i n g w i l l  be  a n d  t u n i n g  1 23  a r e  r e q u i r e d  f a s h i o n e d s h a p e  a n d  t o  r a t h e r  t h e  w i l l  s t r e n g t h e n i n g t h a n  to  h a v e t h e  be  u n d e r l y i n g t h e  e f f e c t  p r i n c i p l e s  r e f o r m i n g  as  t h e  latter  is  context, all  not required.  As i t i s a p p l i e d i n t h e  some a n a l y s i s i s e s s e n t i a l i n t h e c o u r t s  Canadian  to  ensure  that i s imported i s a c t u a l l y necessary i n our s i t u a t i o n .  Some,  i t has been suggested i n t h i s  formulation statutes  of  paper,  is  not.  p r a c t i c e r u l e s o r t h e amendment o f  The  existing  c a n e a s i l y be t o o l s t o f a b r i c a t e t h e m i n o r  adjust-  ments needed.  As cannot  be r i g i d l y  contrivances ful  likened  the  covenants analogy, its  emergence  of  the  successors  binding  in title.  instrument  has  i n t h i s c a s e was i n v e n t e d  E n g l i s h Court of Appeal refused 305 test i n American Cyanamid. m i g h t h a v e some m e r i t  admitted  has  judicial  effect  of  Tulk  restrictive  Whether o r n o t  a  fair  r e s u l t p r e d i c t a b l e by  Karageorgis i n obtaining  suggested  that  the  p r i m a r i l y because of t h e  t o a c c e p t t h e House o f L o r d ' s I t w o u l d seem t h e  suggestion  i f one c a n c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f s  306 ceeded  an  One w r i t e r  author. Another  in  is  resource-  p r e s e n c e and i t s 304  forecast.  what  earlier  o f e q u i t y by  i n n e i t h e r c a s e was t h e f i n a l  judicial  i t s use  o v e r 125 y e a r s a g o o f t h e R u l e i n  concerning on  courts  t h e need f o r i t s c o n t i n u e d  to the r i s e  Moxey  intervention,  o r c o n t r o l l e d and as w i t h  c a n n o t be a c c u r a t e l y  invention v-.  defined  formed f o r a n c i e n t  Chancellors,  longevity  an e q u i t a b l e  307 and Mareva  would not l i k e l y  i n j u n c t i o n s under Lord  1 24  have  Diplock's  suctenets  for  damages w o u l d a d e q u a t e l y  cases,  have compensated  precluding the granting of equitable  Whether suggestion  i s of course  of c o r r o b o r a t i o n . clarify  there  is  in  both  to  the  relief.  veracity  only speculation not l i k e l y  As t h e c o u r t s i n t h i s  the a p p l i c a b i l i t y  them  possible  country  continue to  o f t h a t same t e s t h e r e ,  t h e mind o f  L o r d D e n n i n g i n 1975 may become more r e l e v a n t .  litigants parties, varied,  affected  set  appropriate.  aside  Those  perhaps  spread  any  interlocutory  by  a Mareva o r d e r ,  as  steps  dissolved,  injunction,  well  i n this  o r even  j u d g e s and c o u n s e l i t i s t o be h o p e d  even g r e a t e r r e f i n e m e n t s  1 25  to  jurisdiction  as  appeal  are s t i l l  i s both  As c o n s e q u e n c e s o f t h e r e l i e f  and i n f o r m e d  enable  or  confirming that the order  inevitable effects, will  for  third  a r e a b l e t o a p p l y on s h o r t n o t i c e t o have t h e o r d e r  decision. rare,  As  useful  the very and  become more w i d e -  fairly  raise  e v e n more  that further challenges t o be s e t i n p l a c e .  FOOTNOTES CHAPTER X  304.  ( 1 9 7 9 ) 95 Law  305.  The s u g g e s t i o n 52.  306.  Supra,  307.  S u p r a , f n 8.  Quarterly  Review  474.  i s that of Lazarides,  f n 9.  126  supra,  f n 6 1 , a t p.  BIBLIOGRAPHY  Baker,  P.V. a n d L a n g a n , P.S. S n e l l ' s P r i n c i p l e s of Equity. 2 8 t h e d i t i o n . L o n d o n : Sweet & M a x w e l l , 1 9 8 2 .  Black,  A.  "The S h e r i f f t o t h e A i d o f M a r e v a , o r ( 1 9 8 1 ) New Law J o u r n a l 7 7 0 .  Bean, D a v i d . Bowers,  J.  C a t o , C.B.  Injunctions.  L o n d o n : Oyez P r e s s ,  Vice-versa"  1979, 1 s t e d .  and R o s e n H. "Mareva I n j u n c t i o n : Analysis R e c e n t C a s e s " ( 1 9 8 1 ) New Law J o u r n a l 5 1 7 . "The M a r e v a I n j u n c t i o n a n d i t s A p p l i c a t i o n t o Zealand" [ 1 9 8 0 ] 1 New Z e a l a n d L . J . 2 7 0 .  of  New  Charity,  D a v i d E. "Mareva I n j u n c t i o n s : A L e s s o n i n J u d i c i a l Acrobatics" ( 1 9 8 0 ) 12 J o u r n a l o f M a r i t i m e Law a n d Commerce 3 4 9 .  Dunlop,  C.R.B. C r e d i t o r - D e b t o r C a r s w e l l , 1981.  Farrar,  A.  Gertner,  Herzog,  in  Canada.  J.H. "The E f f e c t of a Mareva I n j u n c t i o n " J o u r n a l o f B u s i n e s s Law 2 7 8 .  Gapes,  Gray,  Law  Toronto:  (1979)  "The Development of t h e Mareva Jurisdiction" ( 1 9 8 1 ) 4 A u c k l a n d U n i v e r s i t y Law J o u r n a l 1 7 0 . Eric. " P r e j u d g m e n t R e m e d i e s : ' A Need f o r R a t i o n a l i z a t i o n " ( 1 9 8 1 ) 19 O s g o o d e H a l l L. J . 5 0 3 .  C.  " I n t e r l o c u t o r y i n j u n c t i o n s S i n c e Cyanamid" 40 C a m b r i d g e Law J o u r n a l 3 0 7 .  (1980)  Peter. C i v i l Procedure i n France. Volume 3 o f t h e Columbia University School o f Law Project on International Procedure. The Hague: Martinus N i j h o f f , 1967. ;  1 27  Hetherington, C. "The M a r e v a I n j u n c t i o n : A u s t r a l i a n E q u i t y " ( 1 9 8 0 ) 18 (N.S.W.) Law S o c i e t y J o u r n a l 5 5 . "The A n g e l B e l l : The M a r e v a I n j u n c t i o n A n t i c ipates t h e D e f e n d a n t ' s Abuse n o t t h e P l a i n t i f f ' s J u d g m e n t " ( 1 9 8 2 ) 20 Law S o c i e t y J o u r n a l 2 4 9 . Hodgekiss,  CC. "Mareva Injunctions - Recent A u s t r a l i a n D e v e l o p m e n t s " ( 1 9 8 3 ) 99 Law Q u a r t e r l y R e v i e w 7.  Jessiman,  J o n L . "The M a r e v a S h i p p i n g , September  Jones,  Kerr,  G a r e t h H. "The R i s e o f t h e M a r e v a I n j u n c t i o n " ( 1 9 8 0 ) 11 C_ o f Q u e e n s l a n d Law J o u r n a l 1 3 3 ; a l s o i n The Cambridge L e c t u r e s . Toronto: B u t t e r w o r t h s , 1981, p. 3 0 . Sir  Michael. Practice"  Lamek, P a u l  Lazarides,  Levy,  I n j u n c t i o n " (1980) Harbour and 1980, p. 15.  "Modern T r e n d s I n C o m m e r c i a l Law ( 1 9 7 8 ) 41 M o d e r n Law R e v i e w 1.  and  S. A. " E q u i t a b l e R e m e d i e s " i n New D e v e l o p m e n t s i n t h e Law o f R e m e d i e s 1981 Law S o c i e t y o f U p p e r C a n a d a S p e c i a l L e c t u r e s 1 2 5 . Don M i l l s : DeBoo, 1981  M. T. "The M a r e v a I n j u n c t i o n - an ' ( 1 978 ) C i t y o f L o n d o n Law R e v i e w 43  Analysis"  Nathan. " A t t a c h m e n t , Garnishment and Garnishment Execution: Some A m e r i c a n . P r o b l e m s C o n s i d e r e d i n t h e Light of the English Experience." (1972-3) 5 C o n n e c t i c u t Law R e v i e w 3 9 9 . "Mesne P r o c e s s i n P e r s o n a l and t h e Power Doctrine." J o u r n a l 52.  Lipstein,  A c t i o n s a t Common (1968) 78 Y a l e  Law Law  K. "Conflict o f Laws - Jurisdiction - Mareva I n j u n c t i o n " [ 1 978] 37 C a m b r i d g e Law J o u r n a l 241 .  Mason, S i r Anthony. " D e c l a r a t i o n s , I n j u n c t i o n s and C o n s t r u c t i v e T r u s t s : D i v e r g e n t Developments i n E n g l a n d and A u s t r a l i a " ( 1 9 8 0 ) 11 U n i v e r s i t y o f Q u e e n s l a n d Law J o u r n a l 121. 1 28  Meisel,  Frank "The M a r e v a I n j u n c t i o n - R e c e n t D e v e l o p m e n t s " ( 1 9 8 0 ) L l o y d s M a r . & Comm. Law Q u a r t e r l y 3 8 . "More on t h e Mareva S o c i e t y J o u r n a l 165.  McAllister.,  Powles,  D. M. 1 983.  Mareva I n j u n c t i o n s .  D a v i d G. "The M a r e v a I n j u n c t i o n " B u s i n e s s Law 1 1 . "The M a r e v a I n j u n c t i o n o f B u s i n e s s Law 4 1 5 . "Mareva Law 3 8 3 .  Rogers,  Round-Up"  ( 1 9 8 0 ) 18  Toronto:  Law  Carswell,  (1978) J o u r n a l o f  Expanded"  (1981)  (1982) J o u r n a l  of  Journal  Business  B. M. a n d H a t e l y , G. W. "Getting the P r e - t r i a l I n j u n c t i o n " ( 1 9 8 2 ) 60 C a n . B a r . R e v . 1.  R o s e , F. B.  Sharpe,  Injunction"  "The M a r e v a I n j u n c t i o n - A t t a c h m e n t i n P e r s o n a m " ( 1 9 8 1 ) L l o y d s M a r . & Comm. L . Q u a r t e r l y 1, 1 7 7 .  Robert J . " I n t e r l o c u t o r y Injunctions: The P o s t American Cyanamid Position" i nStudies i n C i v i l Procedure, Eric Gertner, ed. Toronto: Butterw o r t h s , 1 979.  Stockwood,  D a v i d T. " M a r e v a I n j u n c t i o n s " ( 1 9 8 1 ) J o u r n a l B u s i n e s s Law 4 1 5 , 3 A d v o c a t e s Q u a r t e r l y 8 5 .  Wing, J.A.  "More o n t h e M a r e v a t u t e J o u r n a l 181.  129  Injunction"  of  ( 1 9 8 1 ) Law I n s t i -  APPENDIX I - TABLE OF UNITED KINGDOM  CASES  A a n d B v . C, D, E , F, G a n d H (#1) [ 1 9 8 0 ] 2 L l o y d s R e p . 2 A l l E.R. 347 ( 1 9 8 1 ) 2 W.L.R. 6 2 9 , Q.B. 596 (Q.B.) A v . C (#2) [ 1 9 8 1 ] 2 W.L.R. E.R. 1 2 6 , Q.B. 961 (Q.B.)  634, 1 L l o y d s Rep.  A l l e n a n d O t h e r s v . Jambo H o l d i n g s L t d . a n d O t h e r s W.L.R. 1 2 5 2 , 2 A l l E.R.'502 (U.K.C.A.)  200,  559, 2 A l l  [1980] 1  Astro Exito Navigacion, S.A. v . S o u t h l a n d E n t e r p r i s e C o . a n d Nan J o n g I r o n a n d S t e e l C o . (THE M E S S I N I A K I TOLMI) [ 1 9 8 1 ] 2 L l o y d s R e p . 595 [ 1 982 ] 3 A l l / E . R . 335 (U.K.C.A.) Associated B u l k C a r r i e r s L t d . v . Koch S h i p p i n g FUOSHAN MARU) [ 1 9 7 8 ] 1 L l o y d s R e p . 24 (U.K.C.A.) B a k a r i m v . V i c t o r i a P. S h i p p i n g C o . [1980] 2 L l o y d s R e p . 193 (Q.B.) Bankers T r u s t Co. v . S h a p i r a 353 (U.K.C.A.) Barclay-Johnson.v. Y u i l l (Q.B.)  I n c . (THE  L t d . (THE TATIANGELA)  [ 1 9 8 0 ] 1 W.L.R. 1 2 7 3 , 3 A l l E.R.  [ 1 9 8 0 ] 1 W.L.R. 1 2 5 9 , 3 A l l E.R. 190  A.J. B e k h o r a n d Co. L t d . v . B i l t o n [ 1 9 8 1 ] 1 A l l E.R. 491 (Q.B.) a n d [ 1 9 8 1 ] 2 W.L.R. 6 0 1 , 1 L l o y d s R e p . 4 9 1 , 2 A l l E.R. 5 6 5 , 1 Q.B. 923 (U.K.C.A.) CBS (UK) L t d . v . L a m b e r t (U.K.C.A.) C h a r t e r e d Bank v . 205 (U.K.C.A.)  [ 1 9 8 2 ] 3 W.L.R. 7 4 6 , 3 A l l E.R. 237  Daklouche  [ 1 9 8 0 ] 1 W.L.R.  1 0 7 , 1 A l l E.R.  C h i e f C o n s t a b l e o f K e n t v . V. [ 1 9 8 2 ] 3 W.L.R. 4 6 2 , 3 A l l E.R. 3 6 , [ 1 9 8 3 ] Q.B. 34 (U.K.C.A.)  1 30  C i t i b a n k N.A. v . Hobbs S a v i l l & Co. L t d . e t a l (THE PANGLOBAL F R I E N D S H I P ) [ 1 9 7 8 ] 1 L l o y d s R e p . 368 (U.K.C.A.) C l i p p e r M a r i t i m e Co. L t d . o f M o n r o v i a v . M i n e r a l i m p o r t e x p o r t (THE MARIE LEONHARDT) [ 1 9 8 1 ] 1 W.L.R. 1 2 6 2 , 2 L l o y d s R e p . 4 5 8 , 3 A l l E.R. 664 (Q.B.) C r e t a n o r M a r i t i m e Co. L t d . v . I r i s h M a r i n e Management L t d . (THE CRETAN HARMONY) [ 1 9 7 8 ] 1 W.L.R. 9 6 6 , 1 L l o y d s R e p . 4 2 5 , 3 A l l E.R. 164 (U.K.C.A.) E d w a r d Owen E n g i n e e r i n g L t d . v . B a r c l a y s Bank Ltd. [ 1 9 7 8 ] 1 A l l E.R. 976 (U.K.C.A.)  International  E t a b l i s s e m e n t E s e f k a I n t e r n a t i o n a l A n s a l t v . C e n t r a l Bank o f N i g e r i a [ 1 9 7 9 ] 1 L l o y d s R e p . 455 (U.K.C.A.) Faith Panton Property Plan L t d . v. Hodgetts [ 1 9 8 1 ] 1 W.L.R. 9 2 7 , 2 A l l E.R. 877 (U.K.C.A.)  and  Another  G a l a x i a M a r i t i m e S.A. v . M i n e r a l i m p o r t e x p o r t (THE ELETHERIOS and THE GRECIAN LEGEND) a n d O c e a n b l u e C o m p a n i a N a v i e r a S.A. a s I n t e r v e n o r s [ 1 982 ] 1 W.L.R. 5 3 9 , 1 L l o y d s R e p . 351*, 1 A l l E.R. 796 (U.K.C.A.) G e b r . V a n W e e l d e S c h e e p v a a r t K a n t o o r B.V. v . H o m e r i c M a r i n e S e r v i c e s L t d . (THE AGRABELE) [ 1 9 7 9 ] 2 L l o y d s R e p . 117 (Q.B.) Hitachi Naviera  S h i p b u i l d i n g & E n g i n e e r i n g Co. v . V i a f i e l S.A. [ 1 9 8 1 ] 2 L l o y d s R e p . 498 (U.K.C.A.)  Compania  I b r a h i m S h a n k e r a n d Co. a n d O t h e r s v . D i t o s C o m p a n i a N a v i e r a S.A. (THE S I S K I N A ) [ 1 9 7 7 ] 3 W.L.R. 8 1 8 , 3 A l l E.R. 8 0 3 , [ 1 9 7 8 ] 1 L l o y d s R e p . 1, ( 1 9 7 9 ) A.C. 210 (H.L.) Intraco L t d . v. N o t i s Shipping Corp. [ 1 9 8 1 ] 2 L l o y d s R e p . 256 (U.K.C.A.)  (THE BHOJA  TRADER)  I r a q u i M i n i s t r y o f D e f e n c e v . A r c e p e y S h i p p i n g C o . S.A. (Gillespie Brothers a n d C o . L t d . i n t e r v e n i n g ) (THE ANGEL BELL) [1980] 1 L l o y d s Rep. 6 3 2 , 1 A l l E.R. 4 8 0 , [ 1 9 8 1 ] 2 W.L.R. 4 8 8 , Q.B. 65 (Q.B.)  131  CI  J o h n s o n v . L & A P h i l a t e l i e s L t d . [ 1 9 8 1 ] F.S.R. 286 (Q.B.) M.B.P.X.L. C o r p . v. Intercontinental [ 1 9 7 5 ] C.A.T. 411 (U.K.C.A.)  Banking  Corp. L t d .  M a r a z u r a N a v e g a c i o n S. A. a n d O t h e r s v . O c e a n u s M u t u a l writing Association (Bermuda) L t d . and John ( M a n a g e m e n t ) L t d . [ 1 9 7 7 ] 1 L l o y d s R e p . 283 (Q.B.)  UnderLaing  M a r e v a C o m p a n i a N a v i e r a S.A. v . I n t e r n a t i o n a l Bulkcarriers S.A. (THE MAREVA) [ 1 9 7 5 ] 2 L l o y d s R e p . 509,' [ 1 9 8 0 ] 1 A l l E.R. 213 (U.K.C.A.) Mike T r a d i n g and T r a n s p o r t v. 1980, The T i m e s ) (U.K.C.A.)  Pugnan ( U n r e p o r t e d ,  Montecchi v . Shimco (U.K.) L i m i t e d [ 1 9 8 0 ] 1 L l o y d s R e p . 50 (U.K.C.A.)  [1979] 1  A u g u s t 2,  W.L.R. 1 1 8 0 ,  Negocios d e l M a r S.A. v . D o r i c S h i p p i n g Corp. A S S I O S ) [ 1 9 7 9 ] 1 L l o y d s R e p . 331 (U.K.C.A.) N i p p o n Y u s e n K a i s h a v . K a r a g e o r g i s [ 1 9 7 5 ] 1 W.L.R. L l o y d s R e p . 1 3 7 , 3 A l l E.R. 282 (U.K.C.A.)  S.A. (THE  1093, 2  O c e a n i a C a s t e l a n a A r m a d o r a S.A. o f Panama v . M i n e r a l i m p o r t e x p o r t (THE THEOTOKOS) [ 1 9 8 3 ] 2 A l l E.R. 65 (Q.B.) Prince A b d u l Rahman v . A b u - T a h a a n d A n o t h e r [ 1 9 8 0 ] 1 W.L.R. 1 2 6 8 , 3 A l l E.R. 409 (U.K.C.A.) PCW ( U n d e r w r i t i n g A g e n c i e s ) L t d . v . D i x o n a n d A n o t h e r 2 A l l E.R. 158 (Q.B.)  [1983]  P r o j e c t D e v e l o p m e n t C o . L t d . S.A. v . K.M.K. S e c u r i t i e s L t d . a n d O t h e r s [ 1 9 8 2 ] 1 W.L.R. 1470 [ 1 9 8 3 ] 1 A l l E.R. 465 (Q.B.) R a s u M a r i t i m e S.A. v . P e r u s a h a a n , P e r t a m i n a e t a l (THE MANHATTAN DUKE) [ 1 9 7 7 ] 2 L l o y d s R e p . 3 9 7 , 3 A l l E.R. 3 2 4 , ( 1 9 7 8 ) 1 Q.B. 644 (U.K.C.A.) THE RENA K [ 1 9 7 9 ] 1 A l l E.R. 3 9 7 , Q.B. 377 (Q.B.) 1 32  S e a r o s e L t d . v . S e a t r a i n (U.K.) L t d . [ 1 9 8 1 ] 1 W.L.R 8 9 4 , L l o y d s R e p . 5 5 6 , 1 A l l E.R. 806 (Q.B.) S t e w a r t C h a r t e r i n g L t d . v . C & 0 Managements S.A. a n d O t h e r s (THE VENUS DESTINY) [ 1 9 8 0 ] 1 W.L.R. 4 6 0 , 2 L l o y d s R e p . 1 1 6 , A l l E.R. 718 (Q.B.) T h i r d C h a n d r i s S h i p p i n g C o r p o r a t i o n v . U n i m a r i n e S.A. (THE PYTHIA) [ 1 9 7 9 ] 3 W.L.R. 1 2 2 , 2 L l o y d s R e p . 1 8 4 , 2 A l l E.R 972, Q.B. 645 (U.K.C.A.) U n i t e d Bank L t d . News, A p r . 1 9 8 0 )  v . C l a y b r i d g e S.A. (U.K.C.A.)  (Unreported,  Z L t d . v . A-Z a n d A A - L L [ 1 9 8 2 ] 2 W.L.R. 240, 1 A l l E.R. 5 5 6 , Q.B. 558 (U.K.C.A.)  133  L.Mar.L  2 8 8 , 1 L l o y d s Rep  APPENDIX I I - TABLE OF CANADIAN CASES A d l e r v . Fundex ( O n t . H.C.)  International  L t d . e t a l ( 1 9 8 2 ) A.C.W.S. 147  A l h a m l i m a E n t e r p r i s e s v . The S h i p "ATRA" a n d L o r a c T r a n s p o r t L t d . (1980) (T-4603-80, u n r e p o r t e d ) ( F e d . C r t . Can.) B. P. E x p l o r a t i o n Company ( L i b y a ) L i m i t e d v . H u n t [ 1 9 8 1 ] 1 W.W.R. 2 0 9 , [ 1 9 8 0 ] 114 D.L.R. ( 3 d ) 3 5 , 16 C.P.C. 168 (N.W.Terr. Sup. C r t . ) Bank o f M o n t r e a l v . A p p c o n L t d . 33 O.R. ( 2 d ) 97 ( O n t . H.C.)  [ 1 9 8 1 ] 123 D.L.R. ( 3 d )  394,  Bank o f M o n t r e a l v . James M a i n H o l d i n g s L t d . ( 1 9 8 2 ) 26 C.P.C. 266 ( O n t . H. C.) Bank o f M o n t r e a l v . P a g e P r o p e r t i e s L t d . e t a l ( 1 9 8 1 ) 32 O.R. ( 2 d ) 9 , 21 C.P.C. 127 ( O n t . D i v . C r t . ) Caisse Populaire Laurier A.C.W.S. 467 ( O n t . H.C.)  e t a l v.  G u e r t i n e t a l (1983)  19  C a n a d i a n I m p e r i a l Bank o f Commerce v . N i e l s e n e t a l ( 1 9 8 1 ) 8 A.C.W.S. 168 ( O n t . H. C.) C.D.N. Research a n d D e v e l o p m e n t L t d . v . The Bank o f N o v a S c o t i a e t a l ( 1 9 8 1 ) 32 O.R. ( 2 d ) 5 7 8 , 121 D.L.R. ( 3 d ) 485 (Ont. H. C.) a l t h o u g h r e c e n t l y s e t a s i d e b y t h e D i v i s i o n a l C o u r t o n o t h e r g r o u n d s [ 1 9 8 2 ] 136 D.L.R. ( 3 d ) 6 5 6 . C a n a d i a n P a c i f i c A i r l i n e s L t d . v . H i n d [ 1 9 8 1 ] 122 D.L.R. ( 3 d ) 498, 32 O.R. ( 2 d ) 5 9 1 , 14 B.L.R. 2 3 3 , 22 C.P.C. 179 ( O n t . H. C.) C h i t e l e t a l v . R o t h b a r t e t a l ( 1 9 8 2 ) 36 O.R. ( 2 d ) 124 ( O n t . H. C.) a n d ( 1 9 8 3 ) 39 O.R. ( 2 d ) 5 1 3 , 141 D.L.R. ( 3 d ) 268 ( O n t . C. A. ) Dean v . F o r d C r e d i t C a n a d a (B.C.S.C.)  L t d . e t a l ( 1 9 8 2 ) 38 B.C.L.R. 145  134  D e v l i n and M u l t i p l y Development C o r p o r a t i o n ( 1 9 8 2 ) 34 B.C.L.R. 158 (B.C.S.C)  L i m i t e d v . Hean  Elseguro I n c . v . S s a n g y o n g S h i p p i n g Co. L t d . ( 1 9 8 1 ) 117 D.L.R. ( 3 d ) 1 0 5 , ( 1 9 8 0 ) 19 C.P.C. 1, 2 F . C 326 ( F e d . C r t . Canada) Erie Manufacturing Co. C.P.C. 132 ( O n t . H. C.)  (Canada) L t d .  v.  Rogers  (1981)  24  F e i g e l m a n e t a l v . Aetna F i n a n c i a l S e r v i c e s L t d . e t a l [1983] 143 D.L.R. ( 3 d ) 7 1 5 , 2 W.W.R. 97 (Man. C A . ) Fotomat D i v i s i o n o f L B I Images I n c . F o t o m a t ( 1 9 8 3 ) 20 A.C.W.S. 50 ( O n t . D i v . C r t . ) Gassier v. Gassier District Crt.)  et  a l (1983)  18  Corp.  A.C.W.S.  et a l  351 ( O n t .  H u m p h r e y s v . ' B u r a g l i a ( 1 982) 1 35 D.L.R. ( 3 d ) 5 3 5 , 39 N.B.R. ( 2 d ) 6 7 4 , 103 A.P.R. 674 (New B r u n s w i c k C A . ) I r v i n g O i l . L i m i t e d v . B i o r n s t a d , B i o r n & Co. e t a l ( 1 9 8 1 ) 35 N.B.R. ( 2 d ) 2 6 5 , 88 A.P.R. 265 ( N . B. Q u e e n s B e n c h ) L i b e r t y N a t i o n a l Bank a n d T r u s t Co. v . A t k i n e t a l ( 1 9 8 1 ) 121 D.L.R. ( 3 d ) 1 6 0 , 31 O.R. ( 2 d ) 7 1 5 , 20 C.P.C. 55 ( O n t . H. C.) Manousakis v.  M a n o u s a k i s ( 1 9 7 9 ) 10 B.C.L.R.  P-21  (B.C.S.C.)  M i d l a n d N a v i g a t i o n A/S v . The Owners a n d O t h e r s I n t e r e s t e d i n the Freight a n d S u b - F r e i g h t s o f The V e s s e l "MOUNT RAINIER" and E q u i t y M a r i t i m e E n t e r p r i s e s (1981) (unreported, T-173681) ( F e d . C r t . Canada) M i l l s a n d M i l l s v . P e t r o v i c e t a l [ 1 9 8 1 ] 118 D.L.R. ( 3 d ) 30 O.R. ( 2 d ) 2 3 8 , 12 B.L.R. 224 ( O n t . H. C.)  367,  O.S.F.Industries L t d . v . M a r c - J a y I n v e s t m e n t s I n c . [ 1 9 7 8 ] 88 D.L.R. ( 3 d ) 4 4 6 , 20 O. JR. ( 2 d ) 5 6 6 , 7 C . P . C 57 ( O n t . H. C.) 135  Parkes v. C l a r k e , Oxley and A r c h i b a l d , C l a r k e & D e f i e u x L t d . ( 1 9 8 3 ) 42 B.C.L.R. 268 (B.C.S.C.) P a r m a r F i s h e r i e s L t d . v . P a r c e r i a M a r i t i m a E s p e r a n c a L.DA. e t a l ( 1 9 8 2 ) 141 D.L.R. ( 3 d ) 4 9 8 , 53 N.S.R. ( 2 d ) 3 3 8 , 109 A.P.R. 338 (N.S.S.C.) Quinn v. Marsta (2d) 659 ( O n t . granted)  C e s s i o n S e r v i c e s L t d . e t a l ( 1 9 8 1 ) 34 O.R. H. C.) a n d ( 1 9 8 2 ) 37 O.R. ( 2 d ) 373 ( l e a v e  R o b e r t R e i s e r a n d Co. I n c . v . N a d o r e F o o d P r o c e s s i n g E q u i p ment L t d . e t a l [ 1 9 7 7 ] 81 D.L.R. ( 3 d ) 2 7 8 , 17 O.R. ( 2 d ) 717 ( O n t . H.C.) Rosen e t a l v . H.C.)  P u l l e n e t a l [ 1 9 8 2 ] 126 D.L.R.  Royal Bank o f Canada v . A.C.W.S. 513 ( O n t . H. C.)  Fabricut Ltd.  et  ( 3 d ) 62  a l  Sask-Workwear I n c . v . O l l i n i k ( 1 9 8 2 ) 68 C.P.R. ( 1.983 ) 1 W.W.R. 631 ( S a s k . Q.B.)  (Ont.  (1982)  14  (2d) 232,  S e a b l u e S h i p p i n g & F i n a n c i n g C o . S.A. v . S s a n g y o n g S h i p p i n g C o r p . L t d . (1980) ( U n r e p o r t e d , T-3231-80) ( F e d . C r t . Canada) S e a f o r t h F e d n a v I n c . a n d F e d e r a l Commerce a n d N a v i g a t i o n L t d . v . E x t a c a A r m a d o r a a n d Norman Tammberg ( 1 9 8 1 ) ( u n r e p o r t e d , T5067-81) ( F e d . C r t . Canada) Sekisui House Kabushika 42 B.C.L.R. 1 (B.C.C.A.)  Kaisha  v.  Nagashima  et  a l  (1983)  Van B r u g g e v . A r t h u r Frommer I n t e r n a t i o n a l L t d . e t a l ( 1 9 8 2 ) 35 O.R. ( 2 d ) 333 ( O n t . H. C.) Winter  e t a l v . O l a n e t a l ( 1 9 8 1 ) 9 A.C.W.S. 410 ( O n t . H. C.)  1 36  APPENDIX I I I - SAMPLE UNREPORTED B.C. CASES  Greenwood Forest P r o d u c t s (1969) L t d . v. W e s t g u l f Export L u m b e r Co. I n c . e t a l ( U n r e p o r t e d SCBC C81 2 7 5 0 , . J u n e 2 5 , 1980 - P r o u d f o o t , J . , V a n c o u v e r R e g i s t r y ) K i n g s g a t e H o l d i n g s Company L i m i t e d a n d D e l i n e v . T r a n s p a c i f i c S a l e s L i m i t e d a n d Neuman ( U n r e p o r t e d SCBC.C814499, November 27, 1981 - M a c F a r l a n e , J . , V a n c o u v e r R e g i s t r y ) T.R.I.-A.M. T r a n s p o r t a t i o n L i m i t e d I n c . v . T.I.M.E.-D.C. I n c . (Unreported SCBC C 8 2 1 7 5 9 , April 7, 1982 - McClellan, L . J . S . C , V a n c o u v e r R e g i s t r y ) A l t h o u g h s e t a s i d e by L o c k e , J . on A p r i l 9, 1 982" u p o n D e f e n d a n t p o s t i n g s e c u r i t y . C l a r r y E n t e r p r i s e s L t d . v . The J o y o f L i v i n g I m p o r t s C o r p . (Unreported SCBC C 8 2 5 8 3 4 , O c t o b e r 1 2 , 1982 - Dohm, J . , Vancouver R e g i s t r y ) Janet Scott S l e e p Systems L i m i t e d v. (Unreported SCBC C 8 2 7 1 2 2 , December L . J . S . C , Vancouver R e g i s t r y )  J o h n Thompson e t a l 7, 1982 - H u d d a r t ,  Bank o f M o n t r e a l v . R o b s o n ( U n r e p o r t e d SCBC 0 2 0 / 8 2 , M a r c h 2, 1 982 - A r k e l l , L . J . S . C , K e l o w n a R e g i s t r y ) Dorfman H o l d i n g s L t d . a n d James S. D o r f m a n v . L . Maynard F u h r e e t a l ( U n r e p o r t e d CC A c t i o n F 8 2 5 4 6 0 , December 1 5 , 1982 - D a r l i n g , C.C.J., Vancouver R e g i s t r y ) O i l w o r l d Supply SCBC C 8 3 0 8 1 2 , Registry)  Company e t a l v . G a r y A u d a s e t a l ( U n r e p o r t e d March 1 4 , 1983 - W a l l a c e , J . , Vancouver  Deane v . LDS C o r p . (1970) L t d . ( U n r e p o r t e d SCBC M a r c h 1 7 , 1983 - M e r e d i t h , J . , V a n c o u v e r R e g i s t r y )  1 37  C831082,  APPENDIX I V  NEW BRUNSWICK RULES OF C I V I L  PROCEDURE  PRESERVATION OF RIGHTS PENDING L I T I G A T I O N RULE 40 40.01  Interlocutory  Inj u n c t i o n o r Mandatory  Order  A request f o r an i n t e r l o c u t o r y injunction or mandatory o r d e r , o r f o r a n e x t e n s i o n t h e r e o f , may be made (a) b e f o r e commencement o f p r o c e e d i n g s , b y p r e l i m i n a r y m o t i o n , and (b) a f t e r commencement o f p r o c e e d i n g s , b y m o t i o n , b u t , ,in t h e former c a s e , t h e r e q u e s t may b e g r a n t e d o n l y o n t e r m s p r o v i d i n g f o r commencement o f p r o c e e d i n g s w i t h o u t delay.  40.02 ( 1 ) S u b j e c t t o s e c t i o n 34 o f t h e J u d i c a t u r e A c t , w h e r e a m o t i o n u n d e r R u l e 40.01 i s made w i t h o u t n o t i c e , an i n j u n c t i o n may b e g r a n t e d f o r a p e r i o d n o t e x c e e d i n g 10 d a y s . (2) Subject t o paragraph ( 3 ) , a motion injunction may b e made o n l y o n n o t i c e t o a f f e c t e d by t h e o r d e r s o u g h t . ( 3)  t o e x t e n d an a l l parties  Where  ',  (a) a p a r t y evades s e r v i c e o f a n o t i c e o f motion extend an i n j u n c t i o n , o r  to  (b) s e r v i c e of a n o t i c e of motion t o extend an i n junction has n o t been e f f e c t e d on a l l p a r t i e s and, because of exceptional circumstances, the injunction o u g h t t o be e x t e n d e d , the c o u r t may e x t e n d t h e i n j u n c t i o n b u t each such e x t e n s i o n s h a l l be l i m i t e d t o a p e r i o d n o t e x c e e d i n g an a d d i t i o n a l 30 d a y s . 40.03  (1) Where a p e r s o n c l a i m s m o n e t a r y r e l i e f , the c o u r t may g r a n t a n i n t e r l o c u t o r y i n j u n c t i o n t o r e s t r a i n any person from d i s p o s i n g o f , o r removing from New Brunswick, a s s e t s w i t h i n New B r u n s w i c k o f t h e p e r s o n a g a i n s t whom t h e c l a i m i s made.  1 38  (2) In c o n s i d e r i n g whether to grant an injunction, the c o u r t s h a l l t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t t h e nature and s u b s t a n c e o f t h e c l a i m o r d e f e n c e , and consider whether there i s a r i s k of the assets being d i s p o s e d o f o r r e m o v e d f r o m New Brunswick. (3) N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g R u l e 4 0 . 0 2 , an i n j u n c t i o n may be g r a n t e d u n d e r t h i s s u b r u l e t o r e m a i n i n e f f e c t u n t i l judgment. (4) Where an i n j u n c t i o n h a s b e e n g r a n t e d under t h i s s u b r u l e t o r e m a i n i n e f f e c t u n t i l j u d g m e n t and t h e c l a i m a n t s u c c e e d s on h i s c l a i m f o r d e b t o r d a m a g e s , t h e injunction shall, without further order, continue i n e f f e c t u n t i l the judgment i s s a t i s f i e d . 40.04  Unless ordered otherwise, on t h e g r a n t i n g o f an i n t e r l o c u t o r y i n j u n c t i o n or mandatory order, the p l a i n t i f f o r a p p l i c a n t i s deemed t o h a v e u n d e r t a k e n to a b i d e by any o r d e r a s t o damages a r i s i n g t h e r e f r o m .  40.05  An i n j u n c t i o n o r m a n d a t o r y o r d e r may be made under this r u l e e i t h e r u n c o n d i t i o n a l l y o r upon terms and c o n d i t i o n s a s may be j u s t .  139  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0077686/manifest

Comment

Related Items