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 JESSIMAN B.A., The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1959 LL.B., The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1962 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF LAWS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (FACULTY OF LAW) We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as c o n f o r m i n g t o t h e r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September 1983 © John Lewis J on J e s s i m a n 1983 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. I t i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Faculty of law The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date September , 1983 DE-6 (3/81) AN ABSTRACT The form of i n t e r l o c u t o r y i n j u n c t i o n commonly c a l l e d "Mareva" i s a recent j u d i c i a l i n v e n t i o n . I t was i n i t i a l l y designed by the United Kingdom cou r t s to r e s t r a i n a debtor, p r i o r to judgment, from removing h i s a s s e t s beyond the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the court so as to prevent a c r e d i t o r from subsequently executing upon a judgment. P r i o r t o 1975, t h i s p a r t i c u l a r remedy was p r a c t i c a l l y unknown to the common law and i n j u n c t i o n s were not granted f o r such purposes. In the i n t e r v e n i n g e i g h t years, both the p r a c t i c e and the procedure f o r o b t a i n i n g the i n j u n c t i o n have been expanded and r e f i n e d . The use of the i n j u n c t i o n has spread t o Canada and t o other Commonwealth n a t i o n s . I t s l e g -i t i m a c y was mooted f o r s e v e r a l years f o l l o w i n g the f i r s t r e p o r t e d case. The burden of t h i s t h e s i s i s to examine the p r i n c i p l e and the extensions a u t h o r i z e d f o r i t s a p p l i c a -t i o n both i n Canada and abroad, to probe the sources of i t s i n v e n t i o n and to 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 Canadian context. This i s done, as i t were, as a second view, 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 allows and w i t h regard to the l e a r n i n g s t h a t e x t e n s i v e experience i n the c o u r t s might a f f o r d . i i The examination begins with a review of the law p r i o r t o Mareva, c o n t i n u e s w i t h the r e a s o n i n g u t i l i s e d by the E n g l i s h c o u r t i n i t s a d o p t i o n from c i v i l law p r o c e s s e s and q u e s t i o n s the a u t h e n t i c i t y of the Court's l o g i c i n such a s t e p . An e x t e n s i v e review i s made of s i m i l a r remedies a v a i l a b l e i n some o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s and the t h e s i s concludes w i t h an a n a l y s i s of the dangers i n h e r e n t i n simply i m p o r t i n g the E n g l i s h p r a c t i c e t o the Canadian scene, a course which o s t e n s i b l y the Canadian c o u r t s have i n i t i a l l y f o l l o w e d . The law i s s t a t e d as of August 1, 1983. i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction 1 Notes 1 to 17 6 I I . P r e - T r i a l Attachment A. The T r a d i t i o n a l Rule 8 B. The Exceptions 11 C. Pre-Judgment A l t e r n a t i v e s 15 Notes 18 to 53 18 I I I . Development of the Concept A. Formulation of the Mareva 21 B. I t s Refinement 26 Notes 54 to 88 32 IV. Foreign Attachment A. Early England 35 B. In Scotland • 39 C. Elsewhere i n Europe 43 D. In America 46 Notes 89 to 137 50 V. J u r i s d i c t i o a A. Statutory Basis 53 B. E f f e c t of Other Remedies 58 C. Other J u r i s d i c t i o n s 60 D. Cause of Action 61 Notes 138 to 178 64 VI. The Guidelines A. American Cyanamid Test 67 B. The Requirements 70 C. Canadian P o s i t i o n Summarised 81 Notes 179 to 218 83 i v TABLE OF CONTENTS ( c o n t i n u e d ) V I I . 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. V a c a t i n g t h e Ord e r 85 B. P r o v i d i n g S e c u r i t y 88 C. V a r y i n g Terms o f t h e Ord e r 92 Notes 219 t o 260 98 V I I I . C o r o l l a r y R e l i e f A. D i s c o v e r y 101 B. An t o n P i l l e r O r d e r s 103 C. D e f a u l t Judgment 106 Notes 261 t o 284 109 IX. The C a n a d i a n C o n t e x t A. The F e d e r a l S t a t e 111 B. The C h a r t e r o f R i g h t s 115 C. M u l t i p l e Remedies 117 D. U n i f o r m i t y 119 Notes 285 t o 302 121 X. P o s t - S c r i p t u m 123 Notes 303 t o 307 126 BIBLIOGRAPHY 127 APPENDIX I 130 APPENDIX I I 134 APPENDIX I I I 137 APPENDIX IV 138 BIOGRAPHICAL FORM 140 v A SECOND. LOOK AT THE MAREVA INJUNCTION CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION R e s o l u t i o n of h o s t i l i t y i n England between the common law c o u r t s and those of e q u i t y might w e l l have been a c h i e v e d by James I a f t e r the E a r l of Oxford's Case 1 i n 1615 but even those r e s p o n s i b l e f o r f u s i o n of the two h i s t o r i c streams of our law w i t h amalgamation of the c o u r t s by the J u d i c a t u r e A c t s of 1873 and 1875 c o u l d not have f o r e -seen the e x t e n t t o which the t r a d i t i o n a l s h i e l d of e q u i t y c o u l d be c o n v e n i e n t l y c o n v e r t e d t o a l e g a l sword i n the s h o r t c e n t u r y which f o l l o w e d . A c l a s s i c e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y e x p l a n a t i o n of the nat u r e of e q u i t y was t h a t : " E q u i t y i s no p a r t of the law, but a moral v i r t u e , which q u a l i f i e s , moderates and r e -forms the r i g o u r , hardness and edge of the law, and i t i s a u n i v e r s a l t r u t h ; i t does a l s o a s s i s t the law where i t i s d e f e c t i v e and weak i n the c o n s t i t u t i o n (which i s the l i f e of the law) and defends the 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 and 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 delude the common law, whereby such as have undoubted r i g h t are made r e m e d i l e s s : and t h i s i s the o f f i c e of e q u i t y , to sup-p o r t and p r o t e c t the common law from 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 the j u s t i c e of the law."2 1 The h i s t o r y of E n g l i s h law i s r i f e w i t h examples where e q u i t y has i n t e r v e n e d t o c o r r e c t an i n j u s t i c e ; i t i s well-known t h a t much of the s t a t u t e law was developed as a r e s u l t of an e v o l v i n g system of s t r i c t l e g a l p r i n c i p l e s . While developments on the one hand of new r i g h t s unknown to law, such as t r u s t s and uses, and augmentation on the second hand of p r o c e d u r a l d e f i c i e n c i e s of the common law c o u r t s , such as d i s c o v e r y and e v i d e n c e - t a k i n g , a re po p u l a r examples of the b e n e f i t s g a i n e d by a p p l i c a t i o n of e q u i t a b l e p r i n c i p l e s now t o a l l l e g a l s u i t s , i t i s toward a t h i r d area of e q u i t y ' s f a s c i n a t i o n , the e v o l u t i o n of new.remedies t o en-f o r c e common law r i g h t s , such as s p e c i f i c performance and the i n j u n c t i o n p a r t i c u l a r l y , t h a t the fo c u s of t h i s paper i s 3 p r i n c i p a l l y d i r e c t e d . An i n j u n c t i o n i s an or d e r of the c o u r t d i r e c t i n g a p a r t y t o pr o c e e d i n g s t o do or to r e f r a i n from doing a s p e c i f i c a c t . I t i s gr a n t e d i n cases i n which mon-e t a r y compensation a f f o r d s an inadequate remedy t o an i n j u r e d p a r t y and arose i n c o u r t s of e q u i t y as an instrument of the C h a n c e l l o r and h i s Chancery judges t o overcome the i n a b i l i t y of common law c o u r t s t o grant r e l i e f a p p r o p r i a t e to the i n j u r y or i n j u s t i c e . J u r i s d i c t i o n t o grant i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f i s now i n v a r i a b l y s t a t u t o r y but, b e i n g e q u i t a b l e i n nat u r e , i s d i s c r e t i o n a r y and i s e x e r c i s e d u s u a l l y o n l y i n a i d of 2 l e g a l r i g h t s . W h i l e c o u r t s have i d e n t i f i e d s e v e r a l t y p e s o f i n j u n c t i o n s and have e n u n c i a t e d r u l e s o r g u i d e l i n e s a p p l i c -a b l e t o t h e i r g r a n t i n g , t h e r u l e s have changed from t i m e t o t i m e as j u d g e s b o t h c l a r i f i e d and a d a p t e d t h e remedy t o 4 c h a n g i n g needs and c i r c u m s t a n c e s . The g u i d e l i n e s v a r y 5 p l a i n l y 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 , and t h e phenomenon known as t h e Mareva i n j u n c t i o n f a l l s c l e a r l y i n t h e f o r m e r c a t e g o r y . Such o r d e r s a r e made i n advance o f any f o r m a l d i s p o s i t i o n , o p e r a t i n g o n l y u n t i l t h e f i n a l t r i a l i s h e l d o r a f u r t h e r o r d e r i s made, t h e r e b y m a i n t a i n i n g t h e 6 s t a t u s quo a n t e b e l l u m . P r i o r t o 1975, i t was n o t p o s s i b l e i n t h e o r d i n a r y c a s e 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 t o free'ze a d e f e n d a n t ' s a s s e t s b e f o r e judgment was o b t a i n e d a g a i n s t him. 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 r u l e and t h e y i n v o l v e d f r a u d u l e n t t r a n s f e r s , where s t a t u t e s s p e c i f i c a l l y a u t h o r i z e d such o r d e r s o r where p a r t i c u l a r 7 a s s e t s were t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r o f t h e l i t i g a t i o n . I n t h a t y e a r , t h e U n i t e d Kingdom C o u r t of A p p e a l , l e d p r i m a r i l y by L o r d Denning, M a s t e r o f t h e R o l l s , d e v i s e d a new remedy wh i c h came t o be known as a 8 Mareva i n j u n c t i o n a f t e r one o f t h e v e r y e a r l i e s t c a s e s , 9 a c t u a l l y t h e second one g r a n t e d by t h a t C o u r t . I t was g r a n t e d t o p r e v e n t a f o r e i g n d e f e n d a n t from d i s p o s i n g o f h i s a s s e t s i n t h e U n i t e d Kingdom so as t o d e f e a t any r e c o v e r y a g a i n s t him. 3 L o r d Denning, i n one o f h i s r e c e n t a u t o -b i o g r a p h i c a l r e m i n i s c e n c e s , has c a l l e d t h e Mareva i n j u n c t i o n 1 0 t h e g r e a t e s t p i e c e o f j u d i c i a l law r e f o r m i n modern t i m e s . There i s no doubt t h a t i n e i g h t y e a r s i t has d e v e l o p e d i n t o a p o t e n t and w e l l - u s e d sword. S h o r t l y p u t , t h i s i n j u n c t i o n w i l l r e s t r a i n a d e f e n d a n t from removing h i s a s s e t s from 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 o r d i s p o s i n g o f them w i t h i n t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o r o t h e r w i s e d e a l i n g w i t h them so as t o f r u s -t r a t e any judgment w h i c h t h e p l a i n t i f f may o b t a i n a g a i n s t 11 him. 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 p r o p e r t y o f h i s d e b t o r a t t h e o u t s e t , l o n g b e f o r e he o b t a i n s judgment a g a i n s t t h e d e b t o r , and t h e n t o have t h e p r o p e r t y o r i t s e q u i v a l e n t r e t a i n e d as s e c u r i t y f o r payment o f t h e d e b t i n the e v e n t he a f t e r w a r d s g e t s judgment. I n t h o s e e i g h t y e a r s s i n c e 1975, g r e a t e x t e n s i o n s o f t h a t p r i n c i p l e and some l i m i t a t i o n s have been p l a c e d on t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f t h i s remedy. C o u r t s i n t h e U n i t e d Kingdom and. s e v e r a l Commonwealth c o u n t r i e s have adop-t e d c e r t a i n r u l e s w h i c h have grown up around t h e i n j u n c -1 2 t i o n s and, s i n c e 1979, t h e remedy has been g r a n t e d , a l b e i t s p a r i n g l y , by s u p e r i o r c o u r t s o f most o f t h e C a n a d i a n 1 3 p r o v i n c e s . The F e d e r a l C o u r t o f Canada has r u l e d i t t o o 1 4 has j u r i s d i c t i o n t o g r a n t such r e l i e f . F o u r r e s p e c t e d C a n a d i a n a p p e l l a t e t r i b u n a l s have c o n s i d e r e d t h e m e r i t s o f t h i s j u d i c i a l i n v e n -1 5 t i o n 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 our s h o r e s . 4 I t i s true that the B r i t i s h Columbia Court of Appqal has not yet had f u l l y argued before i t the merits of t h i s procedure but while one case awaits on the hearing l i s t , the Court i n obite r d i c t a i n another has s p e c i f i c a l l y supported i t s adop-1 6 t i o n i n t h i s Province. I t i s estimated from t h i s writer's examination that something i n excess of f i f t y such orders, many unreported, have been granted by t r i a l judges i n the Supreme and County Courts i n B r i t i s h Columbia. The Supreme Court of Canada recently granted leave to appeal a 1982 Manitoba Court of Appeal dec-i s i o n and argument may be expected i n Ottawa on the case i n 1 7 that Court's f i r s t examination of Mareva. I t i s clea r that the procedure has become an established and e f f e c t i v e tool to c i v i l l i t i g a n t s i n our j u r i s d i c t i o n . I t i s a unique remedial form; the purpose for which i t came to be promulgated, the terms under which i t may be granted and the circumstances permitting i t s extension or l i m i t a t i o n bear close examination for i t i s t r u l y an extraordinary measure. That much has been written i n the learned journals i n a very short time i s evidence of i t s novelty; that both t r i a l and appeal courts are s t i l l d e f i n i n g the boundaries of i t s e f f e c t s i s corroboration of the r i s k s s t i l l present i n i t s a p p l i c a t i o n . We w i l l i n the pages following begin such an examination. I t w i l l not be f i n a l l y concluded for some years yet to come. 5 FOOTNOTES CHAPTER I 1. (1615) 1 Rep. Ch. 1; 1 W. & T.L.C. 615. 2. S i r Nathan W r i g h t i n L o r d Dudley and Ward v. Lady  Dudley (1705) P r e c . Ch. 241 and a t p. 244. 3. F o r i n s i g h t i n t o t h e h i s t o r i c a l development of t h e i n j u n c t i o n , see B a k e r , P.V. and Langan, P.S. S n e l l ' s  P r i n c i p l e s o f E q u i t y , 2 8 t h e d i t i o n . London: Sweet & Ma x w e l l L t d . , 1982, p a r t i c u l a r l y a t p. 9 and 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  P r o c e d u r e A c t , 1854, gave t h e common law c o u r t s a l i m i t e d power of g r a n t i n g i n j u n c t i o n s and t h e Chancery  Amendment A c t , 1858, (commonly c a l l e d L o r d C a i r n ' s A c t ) f i n a l l y gave t h e C o u r t o f Chancery power t o award damages e i t h e r i n s t e a d o f , o r i n a d d i t i o n t o , an i n -j u n c t i o n o r s p e c i f i c p e r f o r m a n c e . The r o o t o f t h e problem however, was not 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 g e n e r a l r u l e s o r r e q u i r e m e n t s a p p l i c a b l e t o i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f , an e x c e l l e n t summary can be found 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. 627. 5. See i n f r a , C h a p t e r V I , f o r t h e p r i n c i p l e s a p p l i c a b l e i n c a s e s o f i n t e r l o c u t o r y i n j u n c t i o n s f o l l o w i n g t h e 1975 c a s e o f Am e r i c a n Cyanamid Co. v. E t h i c o n L t d . [1975] A.C. 396. An e x c e l l e n t a r t i c l e on t h e t o p i c i s by Gray, 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" (1980) 40 Cambridge Law J o u r n a l 307. 6. Bean, D a v i d . I n j u n c t i o n s . London: Oyez P r e s s , 1 979. 7. See C h a p t e r I I , i n f r a , f o r a d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e s e ex-c e p t i o n s . 8. Mareva Compania N a v i e r a S.A. v. I n t e r n a t i o n a l  B u l k c a r r i e r s S.A. (THE MAREVA)[1975] 2 L l o y d s Rep. 509, [1980] 1 A l l E.R. 213. 9. The f i r s t r e p o r t e d c a s e was Nippon Yusen K a i s h a v. K a r a g e o r g i s [1975] 1 W.L.R. 1093, 2 L l o y d s . Rep. 137, 3 A l l E.R. 282. \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. \ London: B u t t e r w o r t h s , 1980. A t p. 134. 11. Stockwood, D a v i d T. "Mareva I n j u n c t i o n s " (1980) J o u r -; n a l o f B u s i n e s s Law 415. A l s o see 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 , Debra M. "Mareva I n j u n c t i o n s " (1982) 28 i 6 C.P.C. 1, now p r i n t e d i n book form under t h e same t i t l e a t 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 t h e Mareva b a c k g r o u n d . 12. A u s t r a l i a , New Z e a l a n d , South A f r i c a and Canada, i n t e r  a l i a . 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 of t h e U n i t e d Kingdom 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 A p r i l , 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. Hunt [1980] 14 D.L.R. (3d) 35, 16 C.P.C. 168 [1981] 1 W.W.R. 209. See A p p e n d i x I I f o r a comp r e h e n s i v e c o m p i l a t i o n o f r e p o r t e d C a n a d i a n d e c i s i o n s c o n c e r n i n g t h e g r a n t i n g o f Mareva i n j u n c t i o n s . 14. E l s e g u r o I n c . v. Ssangyong S h i p p i n g Co. L t d . (THE  BOOYONG) [1981] 117 D.L.R. (3d) 105, (1980) 19 C.P.C. 1, 2 F.C. 326. A l t h o u g h not g r a n t e d i n t h i s c a s e , C o l -l i e r J . a f t e r r e v i e w i n g t h e 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 o r d e r s have been 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 example, Al 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 and L o r a c T r a n s p o r t L t d . (1980) (Un-r e p o r t e d , T-4603-80) M i d l a n d N a v i g a t i o n A/S v. The 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 and Sub- F r e i g h t s o f t h e 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) ( U n r e p o r t e d , T-1736-81). H i s 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 t h e c a s e 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. Ssangyong  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 Ap p e a l C o u r t s o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , M a n i t o b a , O n t a r i o and New B r u n s w i c k . See C h a p t e r V, i n f r a , f o r d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e c a s e s . 16. Dean v. F o r d C r e d i t Canada L t d . e t a l (1982) 38 B.C.L. R. 145 i s a w a i t i n g a p p e a l . The Co u r t o f Ap p e a l judgment i s t h a t o f Nemetz C.J.B.C., t o g e t h e r w i t h C a r r o t h e r s and C r a i g , J J . A . c o n c u r r i n g , 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. 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 Canada 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 [1983] 143 D.L.R. (3d) 715, 2 W.W.R. 97. 7 CHAPTER I I - PRE-TRIAL ATTACHMENT A. THE TRADITIONAL RULE B e f o r e t h e Mareva d o c t r i n e was enun-c i a t e d i n 1975, i t was an e s t a b l i s h e d p r i n c i p l e o f law t h a t a c o u r t would n ot i n t e r f e r e a t t h e r e q u e s t of t h e c r e d i t o r w i t h 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 , i n c l u d i n g h i s a s s e t s , p r i o r t o a t r i a l on t h e m e r i t s o f t h e c r e d i t o r ' s c l a i m . An i n j u n c t i o n w ould n ot n o r m a l l y be g r a n t e d t o a s s i s t a p l a i n t i f f t o o b t a i n what would i n e f f e c t be e x e c u t i o n b e f o r e judgment. The l i n e o f common law a u t h o r i t i e s f o r the p r o p o s i t i o n a p p e a r s t o b e g i n w i t h t h e U n i t e d Kingdom C o u r t o f 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 R a i l w a y o f 1 8 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. Stubbs i n 1890. The l a t t e r c a s e i s o f t e n r e f e r r e d t o i n t h i s c o u n t r y by q u o t i n g t h e f o l l o w i n g passage from t h e judgment o f C o t t o n , L. J . : " I know o f no c a s e where, because 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 b r o u g h t t o a h e a r i n g t h e p l a i n t i f f c o u l d e s t a b l i s h t h a t a debt was due t o him from t h e d e f e n d a n t , t h e d e f e n d a n t has been o r d e r e d 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 decree."21 8 In that case, the p l a i n t i f f sued a former employee whose task i t was to purchase supplies for his employer. The employee received kickbacks from the sup-p l i e r for purchases he had made on the p l a i n t i f f ' s behalf and when the l a t t e r discovered the scheme, he sought recovery of the amount of the kickbacks and damages. His i n t e r l o c u t o r y a p p l i c a t i o n for an i n j u n c t i o n preventing the defendant from dealing with or disposing of his immoral gains was twice d i s -missed on the ground that the law required a p l a i n t i f f to f i r s t prove his claim and to secure judgment. At about the same time and based on early a u t h o r i t i e s , Mr. J u s t i c e Drake of the B r i t i s h Columbia court i n 1889 i n Baxter v. Jacobs, Moss et a l put i t t h i s way: "In cases where there has been no order made fo r the payment of money by the Court, the Court cannot r e s t r a i n a man from removing, his property out of the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the Court."22 In Baxter, the p l a i n t i f f sought an interim i n j u n c t i o n against the defendants a f t e r one of them had breached a contract to s e l l a l l his fur seals to the p l a i n t i f f for a f i x e d p r i c e stated i n the contract. The defendant determined instead to s e l l his furs to another party and the p l a i n t i f f attempted to secure an order prevent-ing him from parting with the furs, or removing from the 9 j u r i s d i c t i o n t h e monies r e c e i v e d from t h e i r s a l e . An o r d e r was i n t i t i a l l y g r a n t e d ex p a r t e b u t was d i s s o l v e d on t h e b a s i s o f t h e c l e a r law when t h e m e r i t s o f t h e o r d e r were 23 a r g u e d . 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 p r o c e d u r e s have been a d o p t e d t o p r o v i d e some f pre-judgment re m e d i e s f o r u n s e c u r e d c r e d i t o r s , u n t i l r e c e n t l y t h e common law o f f e r e d l i t t l e a s s i s t a n c e b e f o r e t h e c l a i m was r e d u c e d t o judgment form. " E n g l i s h l a w , " as Dunlop'has p o i n t e d out " i s u n i q u e i n i t s f i r m r e f u s a l t o a s s i s t t h e u n s e c u r e d 24 c r e d i t o r b e f o r e judgment." As we s h a l l l a t e r see, t h e " d i s c o v e r e r " o f t h e Mareva i n j u n c t i o n examined s e v e r a l p r i n c i p l e s o f f o r e i g n a t t a c h m e n t i n o t h e r ' j u r i s d i c t i o n s t o l o c a t e p r i n c i p l e s t o be a p p l i e d i n t h e new e q u i t a b l e 25 d o c t r i n e . I n t h i s c o u n t r y s t a t u t o r y g a r n i s h m e n t p r o c e d u r e s have been e n a c t e d i n most p r o v i n c e s t o e n a b l e a c r e d i t o r , p r i o r t o judgment, t o a t t a c h a debt owed t o a d e b t o r by a n o t h e r p e r s o n b u t t h e remedy i s o n l y a v a i l a b l e i n c l a i m s f o r l i q u i d a t e d sums and does not a f f e c t a s s e t s , r e a l o r p e r s o n a l , a l r e a d y i n t h e hands o f t h e d e b t o r . I n B r i t i s h 26 C o l u m b i a , t h e C o u r t O r d e r E n f o r c e m e n t A c t , t h e p r i n c i p a l 27 s t a t u t e , and t h e F a m i l y R e l a t i o n s A c t c o n t a i n t h e few g u i d e l i n e s a v a i l a b l e i n such s i t u a t i o n s . The l a t t e r , i n common w i t h l e g i s l a t i o n i n most o f t h e p r o v i n c e s o f Canada and a l t h o u g h a k i n t o t h e Mareva i n e f f e c t , i s r e s t r i c t e d t o s i t u a t i o n s i n v o l v i n g p e n d i n g l i t i g a t i o n between husband and w i f e and i s d e s i g n e d p r i m a r i l y t o a c t as s e c u r i t y f o r subsequent o r d e r s r e l a t e d t o maintenance and d i s t r i b u t i o n o f f a m i l y a s s e t s . B. THE EXCEPTIONS The t r a d i t i o n a l common law r u l e b a r r i n g i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f t o a c r e d i t o r had h i t h e r t o been v a r i e d i n o n l y two i n s t a n c e s : i n c a s e s o f f r a u d and f o r p r e s e r v a t i o n o f t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r o f l i t i g a t i o n . They a r e not b r o a d e x c e p t i o n s and c o u r t s have i n t h e p a s t n e i t h e r r e a d i l y n o r e a s i l y c o n s t r u e d s i t u a t i o n s t o a l l o w f o r t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n . 1. F r a u d The c o u r t s have r e l a x e d t h e p r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t r e s t r a i n i n g a d e b t o r from d i s p o s i n g o f h i s a s s e t s where a c r e d i t o r can e s t a b l i s h a p r i m a f a c i e case o f f r a u d on th e p a r t o f t h e d e b t o r . 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 t o th e g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e , i t s b a s i s l i e s i n t h e e q u i t a b l e doc-t r i n e o f f r a u s e t j u s nunquam c o h a b i t a n t . So f o r example, 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 o f i t s goods a t l e s s t h a n t h e i r f a i r market v a l u e t o a n o t h e r company c o n -11 t r o l l e d by t h e same p r i n c i p a l , an O n t a r i o c o u r t r e s t r a i n e d t h e d e b t o r 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 of t h e c r e d i t o r ' s a c t i o n . Or when a fo r m e r employee, c o n v i c t e d o f t h e f t from h i s employer, was sued by t h e l a t t e r f o r w r o n g f u l 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 employer was e n t i t l e d by t h e c o u r t t o 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 t h e d e f e n d a n t from d e a l i n g w i t h t h e f r u i t s o f h i s 29 t h e f t . The e x c e p t i o n has c o n t i n u e d i n t h e wake o f t h e Mareva d o c t r i n e as i l l u s t r a t e d i n t h e 1978 case o f Edward 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 I n t e r n a t i o n a l 30 L t d . where r e f e r r i n g t o t h e t r a d i t i o n a l r u l e , a p p l i c a b l e i n th e c a s e b e f o r e him, L o r d D e n n i n g , M.R. s a i d : "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 an 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 o r o b v i o u s f r a u d . . . . " 3 1 I t i s c l e a r 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 a pr i m a f a c i e c a s e o f f r a u d and a l s o c l e a r i m p l i c a t i o n o f t h e d e b t o r i n t h a t f r a u d . The l e g i s l a t u r e i n t h i s P r o v i n c e , as i n most o t h e r s i n Canada, has e n a c t e d a s t a t u t o r y remedy t o s e t 32 a s i d e o r , r e v e r s e f r a u d u l e n t t r a n s f e r o f p r o p e r t y . Most 33 such r e m e d i e s based on t h e 1570 S t a t u t e o f E l i z a b e t h and 34 th e F r a u d u l e n t Conveyances A c t s o f 1571, 1585 and 1586 35 a l t h o u g h s t a t u t e s can be found back as f a r as 1376 w h i c h 12 d e c l a r e v o i d conveyances and p r e f e r e n c e s when made t o escape o t h e r l a w f u l c r e d i t o r s . The law f o r c e n t u r i e s has had l i t t l e r e g a r d f o r p r o t e c t i o n o f d e b t o r s who "withdraw t h e m s e l v e s , and f l e e i n t o p l a c e s o f h o l y c h u r c h p r i v i l e g e d , and t h e r e h o l d them a l o n g t i m e , and t a k e t h e p r o f i t o f t h e i r l a n d s and 36 goods so g i v e n by f r a u d and c o l l u s i o n . " The B r i t i s h C olumbia s t a t u t e , u n t i l v e r y r e c e n t l y , was a v e r b a t i m r e p r o d u c t i o n o f p a r t o f t h e f o u r 37 hundred y e a r o l d E l i z a b e t h a n law. But even th e more modern l e g i s l a t i o n 1 r e f e r r e d t o , h e r e and a c r o s s Canada, can of c o u r s e o n l y be u t i l i z e d once t h e impugned conveyance has been c o m p l e t e d ( o r t o p r e v e n t a subsequent t r a n s f e r ) and i s o f l i t t l e a v a i l t o t h e c r e d i t o r s e e k i n g t o p r e s e r v e t h e d e b t o r ' s a s s e t s b e f o r e he d i s p o s e s of them. S e r i o u s problems a l w a y s e x i s t i n any e v e n t i n t h e p r o o f o f a c t u a l f r a u d u l e n t i n t e n t i n such c a s e s . T h i s e x c e p t i o n of f r a u d t o t h e g e n e r a l o r t r a d i t i o n a l r u l e c o n t i n u e s t o e x i s t and can be u t i l i z e d r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e f u t u r e o f t h e Mareva i n j u n c t i o n . 2. Subj e c t M a t t e r E q u a l l y o f b e n e f i t t o a c r e d i t o r i s t h e r e l i e f a v a i l a b l e under R u l e 46 o f t h e R u l e s o f C o u r t : 1 3 "46. ( 1 ) ( a ) The C o u r t may make an o r d e r f o r t h e d e t e n t i o n , c u s t o d y , o r p r e s e r -v 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 w h i c h a q u e s t i o n may a r i s e . " 3 8 O r i g i n a l l y p a r t o f t h e c o u r t ' s i n h e r e n t 39 e q u i t a b l e j u r i s d i c t i o n , t h e power t o r e s t r a i n a d e f e n d a n t from d i s p o s i n g o f a s p e c i f i c a s s e t w h i c h i s t h e v e r y m a t t e r of t h e l i t i g a t i o n has been c o d i f i e d h e r e , i n E n g l a n d and i n most o f t h e C a n a d i a n p r o v i n c e s as a p r o c e d u r a l r u l e . 40 A l t h o u g h seldom e x p l i c i t l y used i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , t h e l i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e R u l e a r e c l e a r from i t s l a n g u a g e and, as an e x c e p t i o n t o t h e p r i n c i p l e p r o h i b i t i n g p r e - t r i a l a t t a c h -ment, does not a f f o r d g r e a t scope f o r an a n x i o u s c r e d i t o r . Some j u d g e s have a t t e m p t e d a more l i b e r a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e R u l e by e x p a n d i n g t h e p h r a s e " o r as 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 sought t o 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 be d e f i n e d as 41 "the s u b j e c t m a t t e r . " A n o t h e r has e x t e n d e d t h e meaning o f "a p r o c e e d i n g " t o i n c l u d e a n o n - j u d i c i a l c l a i m but b o t h c r i t i c i s m v i s i t e d by b r o t h e r j u d g e s a t such o b v i o u s l y shabby e x t e n s i o n s 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 of pre-judgment d e t e n t i o n o f a d e f e n d a n t ' s a s s e t s r e n d e r t h e 42 e x c e p t i o n u n r e l i a b l e . \ c. PRE-JUDGMENT ALTERNATIVES As n o t e d i n t h e p r e v i o u s h e a d i n g , i t i s not a n o v e l s t e p f o r a d e b t o r t o seek t o a v o i d c i v i l l i a b i l -i t y o r a t t a c h m e n t by h i d i n g h i m s e l f o r h i s a s s e t s o r by a c t u a l l y f l e e i n g t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n . G a r n i s h m e n t , w h i l e now a l m o s t u n i v e r s a l and t h e most e f f e c t i v e means when approp-r i a t e , has i t s l i m i t a t i o n s i n such c i r c u m s t a n c e s . I n most C a n a d i a n p r o v i n c e s , i f a c r e d i t o r l e a r n s i n advance o f a d e b t o r ' s i n t e n t i o n , t o a b s c o n d , he i s a b l e t o have him a r r e s t e d and h e l d u n t i l c i v i l p r o c e s s o f s u i t and judgment have e n a b l e d j u s t i c e t o be o b t a i n e d . The p r o c e s s , h a v i n g i t s r o o t s i n t h e t h i r t e e n t h c e n t u r y p r o c e d u r e known as c a p i a s ad  respondendum, has c o n t i n u e d t o be a v a i l a b l e a l t h o u g h i n modern t i m e s , i t i s i n f r e q u e n t l y used as i t i s seldom known by a c r e d i t o r t h a t h i s d e b t o r i s about t o f l e e . The o t h e r e a r l y E n g l i s h common law r e m e d i e s a g a i n s t a b s c o n d i n g d e b t o r s seldom were e f f e c t i v e e i t h e r as i t had f o r c e n t u r i e s been assumed t h a t f o r a c o u r t t o have j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r p e r s o n a l a c t i o n s t h e d e f e n d a n t was r e q u i r e d t o make an appearance i n c o u r t . I t was o n l y when 43 d e v i c e s such as o u t l a w r y and f o r e i g n a t t a c h m e n t were c o n t r i v e d a l l o w i n g t h e c o u r t t o t a k e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r a s s e t s o f a d e b t o r who had f l e d t h e c o u n t r y t h a t s u c c e s s f u l p r e -44 judgment e x e c u t i o n a r r i v e d i n E n g l a n d . 15 A modest form o f f o r e i g n a t t a c h m e n t , 45 about w h i c h more w i l l be s a i d l a t e r , was a v a i l a b l e i n c e r t a i n of t h e borough c o u r t s o f London. I t s i n t e n t was t o c o e r c e a d e f e n d a n t a b s e n t from t h e c i t y i n t o r e t u r n i n g t o 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 , a l t h o u g h l i m i t e d i n i t s 47 g e o g r a p h i c s c o p e , but f e l l i n t o d i s u s e o v e r a c e n t u r y ago. I t was w h i l e i n e x i s t e n c e a v a i l a b l e p r i m a r i l y i n c a s e s o f de b t and a p p e a r s n e v e r t o have l a u n c h e d a f o o t h o l d i n t h i s c o u n t r y by v i r t u e of t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f l e g i s l a t i o n en-compassing t h e b r o a d e r a t t a c h m e n t o f d e b t s . I t i s not t h e i n t e n t i o n o f t h e w r i t e r t o can v a s s a l l a v a i l a b l e p r o c e d u r e s f o r a t t a c h m e n t o f d e b t s , save 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 i t s e l f . They a r e g e n e r a l l y w e l l - k n o w n and much has been w r i t t e n o f them i n r e c e n t y e a r s . The Dunlop t e x t t o w h i c h e a r l i e r r e f e r e n c e has been made t o g e t h e r w i t h s e v e r a l r e c e n t p a p e r s p r o d u c e d i n 48 B r i t i s h C olumbia w e l l d e s c r i b e t h e g r o w i n g armoury a v a i l -a b l e t o a c r e d i t o r , whether s e c u r e d o r u n s e c u r e d . F o r t h e c r e d i t o r f a c e d w i t h an a b s c o n -d i n g d e b t o r , i t i s p o s s i b l e i n t h i s c o u n t r y t o o b t a i n a w r i t o f a t t a c h m e n t t o s e q u e s t e r t h e d e f a u l t e r ' s a s s e t s l e f t b e h i n d 49 w i t h i n t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n . As M c A l l i s t e r has p o i n t e d o u t however: 1 6 " N e e d l e s s t o say, t h e r e w i l l be few c a s e s where 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 enough t o l e a v e any ex-i g i b l e p r o p e r t y b e h i n d (him)."50 W h i l e a b s c o n d i n g d e b t o r l e g i s l a t i o n i s a v a i l a b l e i n a l l o t h e r C a n a d i a n j u r i s d i c t i o n s , i t c e a s e d t o be o f a s s i s t a n c e t o B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a n s w i t h r e p e a l of t h e A b s c o n d i n g D e b t o r s A c t i n . 1978 and i s no l o n g e r p r e s e n t i n t h i s p r o v i n c e i n t h i s 51 f o r m , save f o r t h e Mareva p r i n c i p l e . I t was r e p e a l e d f o l l o w i n g a recommendation o f t h e B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a Law Reform Commission t h a t t h e s t a t u t e was "beyond r e p a i r and o b s o l e t e 52 and s h o u l d be r e p e a l e d . " The l i m i t a t i o n s i n h e r e n t i n most p r e -t r i a l a t t a c h m e n t p r o c e d u r e s , whether by way o f g a r n i s h m e n t , i m p r i s o n m e n t , w r i t o f a t t a c h m e n t , a b s c o n d i n g d e b t o r s ' l e g i s -l a t i o n o r as e x c e p t i o n s t o t h e R u l e i n L i s t e r & Co. v. S t u b b s , have n o t p r o v i d e d s a t i s f a c t o r y r e c o u r s e f o r many c r e d i t o r s and our law has been d e f i c i e n t i n t h i s r e g a r d f o r some t i m e . A t l e a s t one a u t h o r i s i n c l i n e d t o v i e w t h e Mareva c a s e s 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 weakness 53 i n E n g l i s h d e b t o r - c r e d i t o r law. 1 7 FOOTNOTES CHAPTER I I 18. (1870) 5. Ch. App. 621, e s p e c i a l l y L o r d H a t h e r l e y a t p. 627. 19. (1876) 24 W.R. 1013, 3 Chan. P r . Cas. 396. See as w e l l R o b i n s o n v. P i c k e r i n g (1881) 16 Ch. D. 660, per James L . J . a t p. 661. 20. (1890) 45 Ch. D. 1, [1886-90] A l l , E.R. 797< 21. I b i d , a t p.23 (Ch. D.). 22. B a x t e r v. J a c o b s , Moss e t a l . (1889) 1 B.C.R. 370 a t p. 372. 23. I b i d . 24. Dunlop, C.R.B. C r e d i t o r - D e b t o r Law i n Canada. T o r o n t o : C a r s w e l l , 1981. A t p.. 188. 25. See C h a p t e r I V , i n f r a . 26. R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 75. 27. R.S.B.C. 1 979, c. 121 . -28. R o b e r t R e i s e r and Co. I n c . v. Nadore Food P r o c e s s i n g  Equipment L t d . e t a l [1977] 81 D.L.R. (3d) 278, 17 O.R. (2d) 717. 29. C i t y o f T o r o n t o v. M c i n t o s h e t a l [1977] 16 O.R. (2d) 257. 30. Edward 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  I n t e r n a t i o n a l L t d . [1978] 1 A l l E.R. 976. 31. I b i d , a t p. 982. F o r f u r t h e r modern day i l l u s t r a t i o n s o f 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 [1981] 118 D.L.R. (3d) 367 ( t h e f t o f fu 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 and Development  L t d . v. The Bank o f Nova S c o t i a [1981] 121 D.L.R. (3d) 485 ( f r a u d u l e n t c a l l on 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 a s i d e 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 g r o u n d s , see [1982] 136 D.L.R. (3d) 656, and Rosen e t a l v. P u l l e n e t a l [1982] 126 D.L.R. (3d) 62 ( b r e a c h o f c o n t r a c t o f i n t e n d e d m a r r i a g e . ) 32. F r a u d u l e n t Conveyance A c t , R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 142; 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. 1979, c. 143. 33. 13 E l i z . 1, c. 5. 18 P a r t i c u l a r l y 27 E l i z . 1 , c. 4 and 29 E l i z . 1, c. 5. 50 Edw. 3, c. 6. From t h e 1379 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 Conveyance A c t , s u p r a , f n 32, was o n l y r e v i s e d i n 1979 and now more c l o s e l y r e s e m b l e s i t s C a n a d i a n c o u n t e r p a r t s . The o r i g i n a l E l i z a b e t h a n S t a t u t e was r e p e a l e d i n 1925 and r e p l a c e d 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 o f t h a t y e a r (1925) 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 example, G r e a t Western R a i l w a y v. Birmingham & O x f o r d J u n c t i o n R a i l w a y (1848) 2 Ph. 597, 41 E.R. 1074. The B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a C o u r t o f A p p e a l d e a l t w i t h an e a r l i e r e q u i v a l e n t r u l e i n Wheatley v. E l l i s (1944) 3 W.W.R. 462. See t h e d e c i s i o n o f F u l t o n , J . i n N i c o l l v. Qak.es (1979) 17 B.C.L.R. 356 f o r one v e r y l i b e r a l i n t e r p r e t -a t i o n . F o r example, see comments o f McEachern, C.J.S.C. i n Dean v. F o r d C r e d i t Canada L t d . e t a l , f n 16, s u p r a . Dunlop, s u p r a , f n 24, p. 195. I b i d . The w r i t ne e x e a t regno, r e s t r a i n i n g a d e f e n d a n t from l e a v i n g t h e c o u n t r y , has even more l i m i t e d a p p l i c -a b i l i t y 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 opposed t o e x e c u t i o n . See C h a p t e r I V , i n f r a . See t h o r o u g h a r t i c l e by L e v y , Nathan. "Attachment, G a r n i s h m e n t and G a r n i s h m e n t E x e c u t i o n : Some A m e r i c a n Problems C o n s i d e r e d i n t h e L i g h t o f t h e E n g l i s h E x p e r -i e n c e . " (1972-3) 5 C o n n e c t i c u t Law Review 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 House of L o r d s d e c i s i o n s : Mayor and Alderman of  London v. Cox (1867) L.R. 2 H.L. 239 and Mayor and A l - derman o f London v. London J o i n t S t o c k Bank (1881 ) 6 App. Cas. 393, e f f e c t i v e l y t e r m i n a t e d t h e p r o c e d u r e . 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, s u p r a , f n 24. See a l s o C o n t i n u i n g L e g a l E d u c a t i o n S o c i e t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , P r o c e e d i n g s a t Seminar on E x e c u t i o n , h e l d a t V a ncouver, B. C. on F e b r u a r y 18, 1983. 1 9 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. I b i d . 51. R.S.B.C. 1960, c. 1, r e p e a l e d August 1 5 t h , 1978 by S.B.C. 1978, c. 11, s. 1. 52. See Law Reform Commission o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , R e p o r t on The A b s c o n d i n g D e b t o r s A c t and B a i l A c t : Two  O b s o l e t e A c t s ( 1 9 7 8 ) . 53. Dunlop, s u p r a , f n 24, a t p. 197. 20 CHAPTER I I I - DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONCEPT A g a i n s t t h i s background t h e n emerged t h e Mareva d o c t r i n e i n 1975. That i t i s a r a d i c a l d e p a r t u r e from t r a d i t i o n a l p r i n c i p l e s i s o b v i o u s and r e f e r e n c e t o t h a t h e r i t a g e o u t l i n e d i n t h e p r e v i o u s c h a p t e r s e r v e s s o l e l y t o emphasize t h e s h a r p change i n d i r e c t i o n w h i c h t h e common law was f o r c e d t o e n c o u n t e r . To see t h e p r e s e n t , p o s i t i o n i n c l e a r e r p e r s p e c t i v e , one must a l w a y s f i r s t l o o k back and w h i l e t h e l e a d i n g a u t h o r i t i e s i n t h e U n i t e d Kingdom may by now be f a m i l i a r t o many l a w y e r s and j u d g e s who have b r u s h e d w i t h Mareva i n h e r s h o r t l i f e , so t o o i t i s h e l p f u l t o ex-amine t h e development o f t h e i n i t i a l c o n c e p t and i t s a c c e p t e d r e f i n e m e n t s t o b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d t h e c o u r s e ahead. A. FORMULATION OF THE MAREVA An . u n s a t i s f i e d judgment a g a i n s t . a d e f e n d a n t w i t h o u t a s s e t s one l e a r n s from e x p e r i e n c e i s b u t a P y r r h i c v i c t o r y ! W i t h B r i t a i n ' s e n t r y i n t o t h e Common Market and t h e r e v i t a l i s a t i o n o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l s h i p p i n g f o c u s s e d i n t h e b r o k e r a g e s c e n t e r e d i n London, t h a t C i t y re-emerged i n th e y e a r s f o l l o w i n g t h e Second World War as a c o m m e r c i a l hub of l e g i t i m a t e i n d u s t r y . The r e p u t a t i o n and volume o f bus-i n e s s f l o u r i s h e d w e l l i n t o t h e 1960's'and 70's b e f o r e t h e economic o r d e r f l u t t e r e d and began t o s u f f e r i n t h e l a t t e r p a r t o f t h e l a s t decade. 21 F r e i g h t , c u r r e n c y and c o m m o d i t i e s markets a l l became d e p r e s s e d and as i n such t i m e s , economic p r a c t i c a l i t i e s become o f paramount i m p o r t a n c e f o r c o m m e r c i a l men i n t h e i r d e a l i n g s w i t h one a n o t h e r . T h i s phenomenon i s n ever more a p p a r e n t t h a n i n t h e s h i p p i n g i n d u s t r y when c o n t r a c t s , o f t e n i n v o l v i n g t h ousands and m i l l i o n s o f d o l l a r s , a r e g e n e r a l l y made months, even y e a r s , i n advance o f r e q u i r e d p e r f o r m a n c e o r payment. C h a r t e r s e n t e r e d i n t o by a l a r g e J a p a n e s e s h i p o w n e r p r o v i d e d such an i n s t a n c e . N.Y.K. had c h a r t e r e d t h r e e v e s s e l s t o t h e d e f e n d a n t s who were Greek; some o f t h e c h a r t e r h i r e had been p a i d but as i t grew unecon-omic t o c o n t i n u e t o o p e r a t e t h e v e s s e l s , t h e d e f e n d a n t s c e a s e d t h e i r payments t o t h e owners and u l t i m a t e l y v a n i s h e d w i t h o u t t r a c e . Donaldson J . of t h e U n i t e d Kingdom Commercial C o u r t i n London r e f u s e d an ex p a r t e 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 a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t s , s e e k i n g t o r e -s t r a i n them from d i s p o s i n g o f some f u n d s t h e y had on d e p o s i t w i t h a bank i n London. The law we have examined was c l e a r , and w i t h o u t s t a t u t o r y a b s c o n d i n g d e b t o r remedies i n t h a t c o u n t r y , t h e c o u r s e was p l a i n ; t h e s hipowner must f i r s t o b t a i n judgment. I n s t e a d , he a p p e a l e d ; t h e r e s p o n d e n t s were not r e p r e s e n t e d a t t h e h e a r i n g o r t h e a p p e a l . W i t h i n t h e g e n e r a l l anguage of s e c t i o n 45 o f t h e Supreme C o u r t o f  J u d i c a t u r e ( C o n s o l i d a t i o n ) A c t ( U . K . ) , 1925, w h i c h p r o v i d e s "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 an 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 c a s e s i n wh i c h i t s h a l l appear j u s t o r c o n v e n i e n t . . . . " 5 4 t h e E n g l i s h C o u r t o f A p p e a l i n Nippon Yusen K a i s h a v. K a r a -55 g e o r g i s i n t h e l e a d i n g judgment o f t h e M a s t e r o f t h e R o l l s s a i d : " I t has n e v e r been t h e p r a c t i c e o f t h e E n g l i s h C o u r t s t o s e i z e a s s e t s o f a d e f e n d a n t 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.... I t seems t o me t h a t t h e t i m e has come when we s h o u l d r e v i s e o ur p r a c t i c e . T here 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 an o r d e r such as i s asked f o r here."56 F e e l i n g t h a t t i m e f o r change had come, th e C o u r t h e l d t h a n an i n j u n c t i o n s h o u l d be g r a n t e d . The shipowner had shown a p r i m a f a c i e c a s e t h a t t h e h i r e was due and was u n p a i d and t h e r e was r e a l f e a r t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s would move what money t h e y had i n London o u t s i d e t h e j u r i s -d i c t i o n , d e f e a t i n g f o r a l l p r a c t i c a l p u r p o s e s any subsequent judgment w h i c h c o u l d be e n t e r e d a g a i n s t them. The d e c i s i o n went r e l a t i v e l y u n n o t i c e d u n t i l a n o t h e r f i r m o f s o l i c i t o r s s e v e r a l weeks l a t e r b r o u g h t a second c a s e , a l s o b e f o r e Donaldson J . I n Mareva Compania N a v i e r a S.A. v. I n t e r n a t i o n a l B u l k c a r r i e r s S.A. (The 57 MAREVA), t h e p l a i n t i f f s h i p o w n e r s had c h a r t e r e d t h e i r v e s s e l on a t i m e c h a r t e r , ' h i r e b e i n g p a y a b l e h a l f monthly i n 23 advance. The t h i r d i n s t a l m e n t was n o t p a i d and t h e s h i p -owners t r e a t e d t h i s as r e p u d i a t i o n o f t h e c o n t r a c t and c l a i m e d damages f o r t h e b r e a c h . The d e f e n d a n t s had sub-c h a r t e r e d t h e v e s s e l t o a t h i r d p a r t y who was making payments t o a London bank t o t h e c r e d i t o f t h e d e f e n d a n t . The p l a i n -t i f f s t h e r e f o r e a l s o sought an i n j u n c t i o n t o p r e v e n t t h e d e f a u l t e r s from removing o u t o f t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n t h e f u n d s on d e p o s i t i n t h e bank. Mr. J u s t i c e D o n a l d s o n t h i s t i m e g r a n t e d 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 t h e m a t t e r c o u l d be r e v i e w e d by t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l , f e e l i n g h i m s e l f bound by t h e L i s t e r v. Stubbs e a r l i e r a u t h o r i t i e s . The o r d e r was t h e r e con-f i r m e d ; t h e a p p e a l j u d g e s v a r i o u s l y d i s t i n g u i s h e d t h e t r a d i t i o n a l r u l e i n t h e L i s t e r l i n e o r d i d not f e e l bound by i t . 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 t o g r a n t an i n j u n c t i o n i n c a s e s where i t a p p e a r e d j u s t o r c o n v e n i e n t , t h e C o u r t i n e f f e c t 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 o r s e c u r e d f o r h i s d e b t b e f o r e he had l e g a l l y e s t a b l i s h e d t h i s r i g h t by judgment: " 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 owing, and t h e r e i s danger 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 a s s e t s . " 5 8 24 P o i n t i n g v i v i d l y t o t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s weak p o s i t i o n i n t h e s i t u a t i o n and t h e f a c t t h a t c h a r t e r e r s were i n s o l e c o n t r o l o f t h e f u n d s t h e y had r e c e i v e d and banked from t h e s u b - c h a r t e r , t h e M a s t e r o f t h e R o l l s p r o t e c t i v e l y b u t a c c u r a t e l y s u r m i s e d t h a t t h e shipowner would never see h i s c h a r t e r h i r e s h o u l d t h e monies be removed from t h e i r London d e p o s i t o r y out o f t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n and c o n c l u d e d : " I n f a c e o f t h i s d a n g e r , I t h i n k t h e C o u r t ought 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 t h e d e f e n d a n t s from d i s p o s i n g of t h e s e monies now i n t h e bank i n London, u n t i l t h e t r i a l o r judgment i n t h i s a c t i o n . " 5 9 Welcome though t h e s e d e c i s i o n s were, e a r l y o b s e r v e r s were c r i t i c a l o f such a d r a s t i c , t u r n a b o u t i n t h e s t a t e o f s e t t l e d law. There had been no s t a t u t o r y change; t h e o s t e n s i b l e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l base had e x i s t e d s i n c e 60 1873, even p r i o r t o t h e L i s t e r d e c i s i o n , and c o u l d h a r d l y be s a i d t o be n e w l y - d i s c o v e r e d . As one 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 welcome f o r i t shows t h e l i b e r a l a t t i t u d e o f t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l towards a p l a i n t i f f r e q u i r i n g p r o t e c t i o n . I f t h e 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 were 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 n e v e r d e v e l o p ; i t would r e m a i n s t a t i c and d e v o i d o f l i f e . " 6 1 Whether o r not on sound ground, t h e judgments s t o o d and g u i d e d t r i a l j u d g e s i n E n g l a n d f o r 25 s e v e r a l M u s t i l l , y e a r s . As one o f t h e t h o s e j u d g e s , Mr. J u s t i c e was l a t e r t o d e s c r i b e : "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 Mareva i n j u n c t i o n was r e c o g n i s e d as f u l f i l l i n g a u s e f u l r o l e a l b e i t w i t h i n a l i m i t e d f i e l d . 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 d e b t o r 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 o n l y p r a c t i c a l p r o s p e c t o f o b t a i n i n g payment was t o o b t a i n ex-e c u t i o n a g a i n s t an a s s e t known t o be s i t u a t e w i t h i n t h e 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 Mareva r e l i e f was m a i n l y i f not ex-c l u s i v e l y a p p l i e d . . . b e f o r e t h e ( n e x t ) d e c i s i o n o f t h e C o u r t o f Appeal."62 I n a t l e a s t t w e n t y - f o u r r e p o r t e d c a s e s s i n c e 1975, t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l has had ample o p p o r t u n i t y t o 63 r e f i n e t h e p r i n c i p l e . W h i l e t h e r e a r e a n o t h e r dozen r e p o r t e d H i g h C o u r t d e c i s i o n s i n v o l v i n g t h i s form of i n j u n c -t i o n , t h e i s s u e r e a c h e d t h e House o f L o r d s i n b u t one 64 i n s t a n c e , The SISKINA i n 1980, and on t h a t a p p e a l , t h e i r L o r d s h i p s , w h i l e r e s e r v i n g on t h e q u e s t i o n o f t h e c o r r e c t n e s s o f t h e e a r l i e r d e c i s i o n s , were n e v e r t h e l e s s p r e p a r e d t o assume t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e power i n p r i n c i p l e . B. ITS REFINEMENT I n t h e r e f i n i n g p r o c e s s , t h e scope o f 65 Mareva has been much expanded and e n l a r g e d . W h i l e i n i t -i a l l y d e c l i n i n g t o " f e t t e r ( t h e p r i n c i p l e ) by r i g i d r u l e s 26 66 from w h i c h a j u d g e i s n e v e r a t l i b e r t y t o d e p a r t , " L o r d Denning and 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 began t o d e v e l o p case by case some c o n s i d e r a t i o n s f o r t r i a l j u d g e s and l i t i g a n t s t o bear i n mind when s e e k i n g t o a p p l y t h e d i s -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 l a t e r r e v i e w t h e s p e c i f i c g u i d e l i n e s w h i c h have come t o be ad o p t e d i n t h i s c o u n t r y , i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o h e r e n o t e t h e speed w i t h w h i c h r e f i n e m e n t s t o t h e p r o c e d u r e were p u t i n p l a c e . F o r t h e f i r s t two y e a r s of Mareva e v o l u t i o n , most a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r t h e i n j u n c t i o n were made i n s h i p p i n g c a s e s , u s u a l l y f o r b r e a c h o f a c h a r t e r -p a r t y , were o b t a i n e d i n v a r i a b l y ex p a r t e , and even on t h e e a r l y a p p e a l s , d e f e n d a n t s n e v e r a p p l i e d t o be h e a r d . I n 1977 i n Rasu M a r i t i m e S. A. v. 67 Perusahaan e t a l ( P e r t a m i n a ) , b o t h s i d e s were h e a r d f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e . 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 s t a t e company 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 t h e market was a t i t s peak. W i t h t h e i n c r e a s e i n w o r l d o i l p r i c e s from 1973 onwards, t h e market c o l l a p s e d and many c h a r t e r e r s sought t o r e n e g o t i a t e t h e i r c o n t r a c t s . The G e n e r a l was not s u c c e s s f u l a t t h e t a s k and was o u s t e d from power. One o f t h e e n t r e p r e n e u r s who had been a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e G e n e r a l had s e t up a L i b e r i a n company, Rasu M a r i t i m e , t o a c t as b r o k e r f o r t h e I n d o n e s i a n 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 market f o r t h e h i r e o f t a n k e r s f o r t h e I n d o n e s i a n s . Rasu used some o f i t s own s h i p s i n c h a r t e r i n g t o t h e G e n e r a l and i n f a c t , b u i l t and d e l i v e r e d one such v e s s e l , t h e MANHATTAN DUKE, i n 1976, j u s t p r i o r t o t h e G e n e r a l ' s f a l l from power. The h i r e payments t o Rasu c e a s e d and t h e 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 t o n a t i o n a l s a f e t y back home. At t h e t i m e Rasu commenced a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e I n d o n e s i a n s f o r $10,000,000.00, th e combined l i a b i l i t i e s o f t h e company exceeded $1,000,000,000.00. There were 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 , v a l u e d a t $12,000,000. l o c a t e d on L i v e r p o o l d o c k s . A Mareva was sought as w e l l and w h i l e g r a n t e d i n i t i a l l y ex p a r t e , was l a t e r d i s s o l v e d . a n d on a p p e a l t o r e s t o r e t h e o r d e r , t h e p l a i n t i f f was u n s u c c e s s f u l . F o r t h e C o u r t , t h e M a s t e r o f t h e R o l l s o u t l i n e d 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 f o r t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e i n j u n c t i o n , by t h e n s i m p l y l a b e l l e d "a Mareva." P o i n t i n g p r i m a r i l y t o t h e s t a t u t o r y d i s c r e t i o n , Denning M.R. a l s o f o u n d some l i m i t e d h i s t o r i c a l b a s i s w h i c h 68 we s h a l l l a t e r examine. W h i l e d e c l i n i n g t h e i n j u n c t i o n i n p a r t on 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 o f t h e c a r g o on t h e L i v e r p o o l d o c k s , t h e C o u r t added two r e f i n e m e n t s w h i c h r e m a i n an i n t e g r a l p a r t o f Mareva j u r i s p r u d e n c e . F i r s t , t h e i n j u n c t i o n s h o u l d not i s s u e u n l e s s t h e p l a i n t i f f can show " t h a t he has a good a r g u a b l e 28 6 9 case." This t e s t or onus while 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 firm guide-71 l i n e s . Second, i t was held that injunctions could be d i r e c t e d not only against money and bank accounts, but against goods as w e l l . Thereafter, "the Mareva in j u n c t i o n soared i n popularity and became a t h r i v i n g industry f o r 72 B r i t a i n ' s commercial l i t i g a t i o n lawyers." In a s e r i e s of 73 twelve cases during the next three years, the Court had concluded the major task of refinement. While i n i t i a l l y developed as an a n c i l l i a r y proceeding as part of a claim for debt advanced against a defendant who was out of the j u r i s d i c t i o n but who had assets within the j u r i s d i c t i o n , i t i s c l e a r i t now includes defendants who .are not foreign-based but who may be 74 described as resident. This 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, while i n i t i a l l y the order was to prevent removal of assets out of the j u r i s d i c t i o n , the scope of orders granted has been extended to include d i s p o s i t i o n of assets within the j u r i s d i c t i o n . I t did not take long to r e a l i s e that a defendant who could s e l l , t r a n s f e r , mortgage or encumber his assets could abide the order to leave them within the j u r i s d i c t i o n and s t i l l f r u s t r a t e h i s c r e d i t o r . A l t h o u g h on a . c o n t e s t e d a p p l i c a t i o n o r on m o t i o n t o v a r y t h e terms of a Mareva i n j u n c t i o n a d e f e n d a n t w i l l n o r m a l l y be a l l o w e d t o d e a l w i t h h i s a s s e t s i n 76 t h e o r d i n a r y c o u r s e o f h i s b u s i n e s s , i t i s n e c e s s a r y t o s a t i s f y t h e c o u r t t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s p o s i t i o n w i l l n o t be 77 j e o p a r d i z e d by such a v a r i a t i o n . The i n j u n c t i o n w i l l i s s u e a g a i n s t a l l a s s e t s t o w h i c h t h e d e f e n d a n t has e n t i t l e m e n t o r c l a i m whether i n t h e n a t u r e o f money, goods, r e a l p r o p e r t y , 78 a i r c r a f t , v e s s e l s o r most o t h e r moveables o r immoveables. I t i s s u e s a g a i n s t b o t h s p e c i f i c and u n s p e c i f i c b u t 79 a s c e r t a i n a b l e a s s e t s and once g r a n t e d , i s c a p a b l e o f an a m b u l a t o r y e f f e c t so as t o a p p l y t o subsequent a d d i t i o n s t o 80 any c l a s s o f p r o p e r t y s p e c i f i e d i n t h e i n j u n c t i o n . A c t i o n s i n w h i c h t h e c o r o l l a r y Mareva can be s o u g h t , once r e s t r i c t e d t o d e b t c l a i m s , appear now t o be u n l i m i t e d and o r d e r s have been g i v e n i n n e g l i g e n c e , t o r t , 81 c o n t r a c t , and m a t r i m o n i a l c l a i m s ; an o r d e r has been g i v e n 82 i n a c l a i m f o r c o s t s . I n 1979, c e r t a i n p r o c e d u r e s were a d o p t e d 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 s h a l l see, each of t h e C a n a d i a n a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s has a p p r o v e d t h e s e g u i d e l i n e s i n v a r y i n g d e g r e e s . G e n e r a l l y , t h a t has been t r u e o f o t h e r Commonwealth c o u r t s as t h e p r a c t i c e has s p r e a d . The o n l y A u s t r a l i a n 30 a p p e a l c o u r t t o r e v i e w t h e d o c t r i n e , t h e New South Wales C o u r t o f A p p e a l , i n R i l e y McKay P t y . L t d . v. McKay and 85 A n o t h e r , r e c e n t l y d e c l i n e d t o f o r m a l l y e ndorse t h e T h i r d  C h a n d r i s g u i d e l i n e s o b s e r v i n g t h a t i t was " . . . u n d e s i r a b l e t o u n d e r t a k e t h e f o r m u l a t i o n o f g e n e r a l t e s t s o r boundary l i n e s w h i c h m i g h t , i n t h e i r v e r y g e n e r a l i t y , p r e c l u d e o r d i s t o r t t h e u s e f u l development o f t h i s new remedy."86 E x p r e s s i n g some s c e p t i c i s m as t o t h e f u t u r e use o f t h e d o c t r i n e , t h e A u s t r a l i a n c o u r t r e f l e c t s what g e n e r a l l y has been j u d i c i a l c a u t i o n a g a i n s t p e r m i t t i n g p o s s i b l e abuse of a new and, a t l e a s t i n t h a t c o u n t r y , n o t f u l l y t e s t e d c o n c e p t . I n a l l o w i n g t h e i n j u n c t i o n t o s t a n d 87 (as f o u r e a r l i e r s t a t e c o u r t s h a d ) , t h e c o u r t put i n t o p e r s p e c t i v e t h e r a t i o n a l e f o r t h e d e p a r t u r e from t h e e a r l i e r common law and c o n f i r m e d t h e b a s i s o f t h e remedy 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 judgment 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 and 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 t o a d m i n i s t e r 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 ot 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 d e b t o r f rom 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 t o d i s p o s i t i o n s w h i c h . . . 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 t h e n e c e s s a r y e f f e c t o f f r u s t r a t i n g , t h e 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 FOOTNOTES CHAPTER I I I 54. 15 & 16 Geo. 5, c. 49. 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 the J u d i c a t u r e A c t (U.K.) o f 1873. 55. S u p r a , f n 9. 56. I b i d , a t p. 283 ( A l l E.R.). 57. S u p r a , f n 8. 58. I b i d , p e r Denning, M.R. a t p. 215 ( A l l E.R.). 59. I b i d , a t p. 216. 60. See f n 20, s u p r a . 61. L a z a r i d e s , M.T. "The Mareva I n j u n c t i o n - an A n a l y s i s " (1978) C i t y o f London Law Review 43, a t p. 47. 62. I n 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) [1979] Q.B. 645, 3 W.L.R. 122, 2 L l o y d s Rep. 184, 2 A l l E. R. 972, a t p. 975 ( A l l E.R.). 63. See Appe n d i x I . 64. I b r a h i m Shanker and Co. and O t h e r s v. D i t o s Compania  N a v i e r a S.A. (The SISKINA) [1977] 3 W.L.R. 818, 3 A l l E.R. 803, [1978] 1 L l o y d s Rep. 1, (1979) A.C. 210. 65. F o r f u l l e r d i s c u s s i o n , see an 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) J o u r n a l o f  B u s i n e s s Law 415. 66. [1977] 2 L l o y d s Rep. 397, 3 A l l E.R. 324, (1978) 1 Q.B. 644, a t p. 333 ( A l l E.R.). 67. I b i d . 68. See C h a p t e r I V , 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. 334. 70. S u p r a , f n 5; C f . d i s c u s s i o n i n C h a p t e r V I , i n f r a , a t p. 67. 71. See C h a p t e r V I , i n f r a , a t p. 71. 72. M c A l l i s t e r , s u p r a , f n 11, a t p. 37. 73. P a r t i c u l a r l y : ( i n c h r o n o l o g i c a l o r d e r ) 32 A s s o c i a t e d 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) [1978] 1 L l o y d s Rep. 24; 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 FRIENDSHIP) [1978] 1 L l o y d s Rep. 368; 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) [1978] 1 W.L.R. 966, 1 L l o y d s Rep. 425, 3 A l l E.R. 164; N e g o c i o s d e l Mar S.A. v. D o r i c S h i p p i n g Corp. S.A. (The  ASSIOS) [1979] 1 L l o y d s Rep. 331; M o n t e c c h i v. Shimco (U.K.) L i m i t e d [1979] 1 W.L.R. 1180, [1980] 1 L l o y d s Rep. 50; Gebr. Van Weelde S c h e e p v a a r t K a n t o o r B.V. v. Homeric  M a r i n e S e r v i c e s L t d . (.The AGRABELE) [ 1 979] 2 L l o y d s Rep. 117; 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 [1979] 1 L l o y d s Rep. 455; 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 PYTHHA) [1979] 3 W.L.R. 122, 2 L l o y d s Rep. 184, Q.B. 645, 2 A l l E.R. 972; C h a r t e r e d Bank v. Daklouche [1980] 1 W.L.R. 107, 1 A l l E.R. 205; A l l e n and O t h e r s v. Jambo H o l d i n g s L t d . and O t h e r s [1980] 1 W.L.R. 1252, 2 A l l E.R. 502; I r a q u i M i n i s t r y of.. Defence v. Arc e p e y S h i p p i n g Co. S. A. ( G i l l e s p i e B r o t h e r s and Co. 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. 632, 1 A l l E.R. 480, [1981] 2 W.L.R. 488, Q.B. 65; P r i n c e A b d u l Rahman v. Abu-Taha and A n o t h e r [1980] 1 W.L.R. 1268, 3 A l l E.R. 409. 74. B a r c l a y - J o h n s o n v. Y u i l l [1980] 1 W.L.R. 1259, 3 A l l E.R. 190. P r i n c e A b d u l Rahman v. Abu-Taha and A n o t h e r , s u p r a , f n 73, C h a r t e r e d Bank v. Da k l o u c h e , s u p r a , f n 73. 75. S u p r a , f n 64, a t p. 9 ( L l o y d s R e p . ) . 76. See f n 77 and Ch a p t e r V I , i n f r a , p. 79. 77. THE ASSIOS, 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 p o i n t , f n 11. W h i l e t h e i n i t i a l o r d e r i s n o r m a l l y g r a n t e d i n g e n e r a l t e r m s , a t t h e r e q u e s t o f a d e f e n d a n t t h e C o u r t , p a r t i c u l a r l y as more d e t a i l s o f t h e d e f e n -d a n t ' s a s s e t s become known, w i l l o f t e n p e r m i t him t o 33 I d e a l w i t h h i s s t o c k i n t r a d e i f s u f f i c i e n t o t h e r a s s e t s o r s e c u r i t y a r e s t i l l a v a i l a b l e f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e p l a i n t i f f . 78. Rasu M a r i t i m e S. A. v. Perusahaan e t a l , s u p r a , f n 66. See a l s o A l l e n and O t h e r s v. Jambo H o l d i n g s L t d . and 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. U n i m a r i n e S.A.  (The PYTHIA), f n 62. 80. 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 . , f n 73. 81. A l l e n and O t h e r s v. Jambo H o l d i n g s , f n 73; B a r c l a y - J ohnson v. Y u i l l , f n 74; P i v o r a r o f f v. C h i r n a l b a e f f (1978) 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 but examples. 82. F a i t h P anton P r o p e r t y P l a n L t d . v. H o d g e t t s and  A n o t h e r [1981] 1 W.L.R. 927, 2 A l l E.R. 877. 83. T h i r d C h a n d r i s , supra,, f n 62. 84. I n f r a , c h a p t e r V I , p. 70. 85. [1982] 1 N.S.W.L.R. 264. 86. I b i d , a t p. 276. 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 -Recent A u s t r a l i a n Developments" (1983) 99 Law Q u a r t e r l y  Review 7 and a l s o , H e t h e r i n g t o n , M. . "The Mareva 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 " (1980) 18 Law S o c i e t y  J o u r n a l 55 and Bowers, J . and Rosen, H., "Mareva I n j u n c t i o n s : A n a l y s i s o f Recent C a s e s " (1981) New , Law  J o u r n a l 517 f o r f u l l e r d i s c u s s i o n o f A u s t r a l i a n and some New Z e a l a n d d e v e l o p m e n t s . 88. I b i d , a l s o a t p. 276. 34 CHAPTER IV - FOREIGN ATTACHMENT A. EARLY ENGLAND E a r l y arguments found some h i s t o r i c a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r t h e Mareva o r d e r i n a n c i e n t o r f o r e i g n customs. As we s h a l l s ee, t h e s e d i d n o t r e m a i n i n E n g l a n d and t h e i r c o n t i n u a t i o n e l s e w h e r e i s d o u b t f u l . Whether i t was p o l i t i c a l l y o r c o m m e r c i a l l y a p p r o p r i a t e t o r e i n t r o d u c e t h e p r a c t i c e i s o f c o u r s e a q u e s t i o n a p a r t from t h e wisdom o f e f f e c t i n g i t by j u d i c i a l p r o c e s s . The f i r s t c a s e s i n v o k i n g t h e a t t a c h m e n t p r i n c i p l e were i n v a r i a b l y c o m m e r c i a l d i s p u t e s , o f t e n c l a i m s i n ' A d m i r a l t y , where m e r c a n t i l e p r a c t i c e s g r a d u a l l y found t h e i r way, w i t h L o r d M a n s f i e l d ' s generous h e l p , i n t o t h e common law o f E n g l a n d . A d m i r a l t y C o u r t s , o p e r a t i n g q u i t e s e p a r a t e l y u n t i l 1875, had i n c o r p o r a t e d much o f c i v i l law p r a c t i c e i n t h e i r d i s t i n c t a r e a o f j u r i s d i c t i o n by v i r t u e o f th e C o u r t ' s h e r i t a g e and t h e g e n e s i s o f i t s b a s i s o f s u b s t a n t i v e law. The a t t a c h m e n t o f v e s s e l s , t h e i r c a r g o and f r e i g h t a r e common s t e p s i n a d m i r a l t y p r o c e e d i n g s and a t t e m p t s a t e x t e n s i o n of t h e p r i n c i p l e t o o t h e r c o m m e r c i a l p r a c t i c e s i n E n g l a n d d u r i n g t h e e i g h t e e n t h and n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r i e s were n o t uncommon. 35 The e a r l y arguments r e l i e d on an o l d 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 t o i n a p r e v i o u s c h a p t e r as f o r e i g n a t t a c h m e n t . W h i l e no r e f e r e n c e was 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 , i n t h e 89 l a t e r c a s e o f P e r t a m i n a , L o r d Denning b r i e f l y r e v i e w e d t h e a n c i e n t London law w h i c h p e r m i t t e d a p l a i n t i f f t o o b t a i n a w r i t t o a t t a c h a s s e t s l e f t b e h i n d by a d e b t o r who had 90 d e p a r t e d t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n . 91 Q u o t i n g from a 1723 t e x t by Bohun and 92 an 1842 t e x t by P u l l i n g , t h e M a s t e r o f t h e R o l l s i n 1977 p o i n t e d t o what he d e s c r i b e d as t h e "customs 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 London, as i n o t h e r Roman p r o v i n c e s , was al w a y s c o n s i d e r e d e x t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t t o t h e c i t i z e n s as 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 ight 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 , though a t t h e same t i m e he might have l e f t ample 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 p a r t i e s . . . . T h i s c u s t o m a r y mode o f p r o c e e d -i n g s s t i l l e x i s t s i n o t h e r a n c i e n t c i t i e s and towns i n E n g l a n d , as 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 whether l o c k e d up i n boxes o r n o t , ( f o r t h e c o u r t may o r d e r them t o be opened) .... T h i s remedy i s not c o n f i n e d t o c i t i -z e n s , 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 , open t o any p e r s o n when h i s d e b t o r has 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 o f t h e c o u r t . . . . " 9 3 There was no doubt as t o i t s e f f i c i e n c y 36 94 and as Levy has r e p o r t e d , by t h e c l o s e even o f t h e f o u r -t e e n t h c e n t u r y , f o r e i g n a t t a c h m e n t , d e r i v e d from t h e Law Merch a n t , was a l r e a d y an a n c i e n t custom. I t was c l e a r l y n e c e s s a r y as i n e v e r y s o c i e t y i n w h i c h c r e d i t t r a n s a c t i o n s have e x i s t e d , c r e d i t o r s have been t r o u b l e d by t h e n e f a r i o u s d e p a r t u r e o f p e r s o n s t o whom t h e y have made l o a n s o r t o whom t h e y have s o l d goods on c r e d i t . London, as t h e l a r g e s t o f th e c o m m e r c i a l c e n t e r s i n t h e w o r l d a t t h a t t i m e , had t h e g r e a t e s t p r o b l e m , p a r t i c u l a r l y when a s u b s t a n t i a l p a r t o f t h e commerce was - w i t h f o r e i g n e r s who were more a p t t h a n l o c a l c i t i z e n s t o d i s a p p e a r w i t h o u t w a r n i n g . T h i s means, d e v e l o p e d as a method where-by l o c a l c r e d i t o r s c o u l d r e a c h w i t h d e s p a t c h any a s s e t s t h e i r d e p a r t e d d e b t o r s might have l e f t b e h i n d , was an e a r l y f o r e r u n n e r t o t h e modern day A b s c o n d i n g D e b t o r A c t s we have 94a a l r e a d y d i s c u s s e d . A l t h o u g h o s t e n s i b l y g u a r a n t e e d as a p r i v i l e g e o f t h e P o r t a n d , C i t y o f London C o u r t s by k i n g s and • ; 95 p a r l i a m e n t s from an e a r l y t i m e , t h e custom c o u l d h a r d l y be s a i d t o have s t i l l been a p p l i c a b l e i n 1975 o r even 1977 as a b a s i s f o r i t s r e - i n t r o d u c t i o n i n a n o t h e r g u i s e . Emboldened t o p u r s u e t h e t o p i c f u r t h e r , one might s u g g e s t t h a t t h r e e i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r s r e s p e c t i n g t h e p r a c t i c e o f f o r e i g n a t t a c h m e n t as known i n E n g l a n d s h o u l d have been c o n s i d e r e d by t h e M a s t e r o f t h e R o l l s . F i r s t l y , i t s use was g e n e r a l l y r e s t r i c t e d t o w h o l l y c o m m e r c i a l d i s p u t e s i n v o l v i n g t r a d e r s and t h e i r c u s t o m e r s , one o f whom was i n v a r i a b l y a f o r e i g n e r and beyond t h e normal j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t s . I t was not a remedy a v a i l a b l e i n s i t u a t i o n s i n v o l v i n g two c i t i z e n s o r s u b j e c t s engaged i n a l e g a l q u a r r e l . S e c o n d l y , a f t e r about 1750, t h e r e was a g e n e r a l r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t n o t i c e be g i v e n t o a d e f e n d a n t p r i o r t o an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r t h e w r i t o f a t t a c h m e n t by a p l a i n t i f f i n London. Such w r i t s were n o t a v a i l a b l e ex p a r t e as i s t h e Mareva and w h i l e t h e f o r m e r l o s e s much of t h e f a s c i n a t i n g e f f i c i e n c y o f t h e l a t t e r , i t c o u l d n ot be o b t a i n e d w i t h o u t 9 6 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 about 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, e n a b l e d p l a i n t i f f s t o 97 o b t a i n judgment i n d e f a u l t o f appearance and i n t r o d u c e d 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 . L a s t l y , and most i m p o r t a n t l y , t h e p r a c t i c e , because o f i t s f l a g r a n t abuse, was abandoned when t h e House of L o r d s i n 1867 a p p r o v e d a w r i t o f p r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t t h e London c o u r t from p r o c e e d i n g w i t h i t s a t t a c h m e n t 99 p r o c e s s . A second c a se i n 1881 i n t h e same forum p r o v i d e d 1 00 i t s f i n a l d e a t h 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 . . . \ though 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 r e f e r r e d t o ] "101 ;> I 38 t h e b e t t e r v i e w o f s c h o l a r s i s t h a t t h e London c o u r t s t h e n a l t o g e t h e r c e a s e d t o e x e r c i s e t h e s e a n c i e n t powers and not 1 02 one modern r e f e r e n c e can be f o u n d . I t i s perhaps r e l e v a n t t o n o t e a l s o t h a t no comment whatever a p p e a r s i n t h e most r e c e n t (1979) e d i t i o n o f H a l s b u r y . A c e n t u r y b e f o r e Mareva a r r i v e d i n E n g l a n d " . . . t h e t i m e had become p r o p i t i o u s f o r t h e j e t t i s o n i n g o f a s e r i e s o f p r o -c 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 were t h o u g h t . . . t o be bad f o r b u s i n e s s . " 1 0 3 So much f o r t h e customs o f E n g l a n d . (B) IN SCOTLAND I t was not u n n a t u r a l s i n c e e n t r y o f t h e U n i t e d Kingdom i n t o t h e European Economic Community t h a t r e f e r e n c e s h o u l d be had t o s i m i l a r laws and p r a c t i c e s i n o t h e r member n a t i o n s o f t h e Community. Comity amongst them i s a c o n t r a c t u a l g o a l and congruence o f t h e i r laws and t h e i r e n f o r c e m e n t an a d m i t t e d aim. The U.K. C o u r t o f A p p e a l t u r n e d t o examine what a r e on t h e s u r f a c e p r a c t i c e s i n some European n a t i o n s based on c i v i l law a k i n t o t h e abandoned f o r e i g n a t t a c h m e n t p r o c e s s i n London. They d i d not have t o l o o k f a r and eyes f i r s t t u r n e d n o r t h w a r d t o S c o t l a n d . 39 "Now t h a t we have 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 any r a t e i n r e g a r d t o d e f e n d a n t s n o t w i t h i n t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n . By d o i n g so we s h o u l d be f u l f i l l i n g one 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 l a t e r c a s e , L o r d Denning a f f i r m s : "Now t h a t we a r e i n t h e Common Mar-k 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 c o u n t r y "105 and: " I n o r d e r t o harmonise t h e laws o f t h e Common Market 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 a p p l y p r o t e c t i v e measures her e so as t o p r e v e n t t h e s e 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 t h e g o a l and aim o f t h e T r e a t y o f Rome and c o n v e n t i o n s among member n a t i o n s o f t h e E.E.C., t h e r e i s no doubt. 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 p r o c e s s , t h e L o r d s o f A p p e a l i n O r d i n a r y i n t h e House o f L o r d s b l u n t l y b u t f a i r l y r eminded t h e M a s t e r o f t h e R o l l s o f the d i s t i n c t i o n between l e g i s l a t i v e 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 he r e f o r j u d g e s o f n a t i o n a l c o u r t s o f member s t a t e s t o jump t h e gun 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 what would be a s u i t a b l e harmon-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 L o r d D i p l o c k , whose speech was c o n c u r r e d w i t h by t h e o t h e r f o u r Law L o r d s , a l s o p o i n t e d o ut t h a t t h e 1968 E.E.C. C o n v e n t i o n on J u r i s d i c t i o n r e q u i r e d o r i g i n a l member s t a t e s , such as Germany w h i c h e x e r c i s e d j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r a d e f e n d a n t based s o l e l y on e x i s t e n c e i n t h a t c o u n t r y o f a s s e t s b e l o n g i n g t o him, t o a b o l i s h t h e p r a c t i s e . S c o t s c o u r t s , by a p r o c e s s we s h a l l b r i e f l y examine, a r e b e i n g r e q u i r e d t o do l i k e w i s e : " Comity, t h e r e f o r e , ... would seem t o be a g a i n s t a Mareva i n j u n c t i o n as 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 t h e 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 d e f e n d a n t s n ot o r d i n a r i l y r e s i d e n t i n E n g l a n d , but p o s s e s s e d o f some a s s e t s here."108 The S c o t s p r a c t i c e , as w i t h German and o t h e r European p r o c e d u r e s r e f e r r e d t o , i s g e n e r a l l y t i e d t o t h e c o n c e p t o f p r o v i d i n g t h e n a t i o n a l c o u r t w i t h j u r i s d i c t i o n t o p r o c e e d a g a i n s t an a b s e n t d e f e n d a n t by t a k i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r h i s c h a t t e l s t h e n p r e s e n t . "The a r r e s t o f moveables by a p l a i n t i f f g i v e s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o a S c o t t i s h c o u r t i n 1 09 personam o v e r a d e f e n d a n t . " The p r o c e d u r e , known as a r r e s t m e n t ad  fundandum j u r i s d i c t i o n e m , p e r m i t s a p l a i n t i f f t o a r r e s t i n t h e hands o f a t h i r d p a r t y moveable p r o p e r t y o f c o m m e r c i a l v a l u e , whether o r n o t c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e s u b j e c t o f t h e a c t i o n , b e l o n g i n g 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 i s o t h e r w i s e beyond t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e S c o t t i s h c o u r t . 41 I t i s a p p a r e n t l y a good ground of j u r i s d i c t i o n o n l y i n a c t i o n s f o r d e b t o r damages and g i v e s t o a p l a i n t i f f no r i g h t 11 0 by i t s e l f t o p r o p e r t y a t t a c h e d . "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 r e n d e r t h e s u b j e c t a r r e s t e d . . l i t i g i o u s ' , so 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 t h e d e b t o r . " 1 1 1 As soon however, as t h e f o r e i g n d e f e n d a n t e n t e r s an a p p e a r -ance, t h e a r r e s t c e a s e s and. " . . . t h e 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 hands t h e moveables w h i c h ( t h e o r d e r ) a f f e c t e d .... I t does n o t a t t a c h t o t h e 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 as n o t i c e . " 1 1 2 I t i s n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e p u r s u e r to. be s u c c e s s f u l i n an a c t i o n o f " f u r t h c o m i n g " as w e l l as h i s p r i n c i p a l cause i n o r d e r t o s e c u r e any i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o p e r t y i n i t i a l l y d e t a i n e d . The p r o c e d u r e , d e s c r i b e d by t h e same House o f L o r d s i n a S c o t t i s h a p p e a l i n 1975 as an 11 3 " e x o r b i t a n t " j u r i s d i c t i o n , was a p p a r e n t l y o r i g i n a l l y an i m p o r t a t i o n from H o l l a n d t o p r o v i d e an e x c e p t i o n a l remedy " f o r r e a s o n s o f e x p e d i e n c y and t h e encouragement of 114 t r a d e . " I t i s s u p p l e m e n t a r y t o t r a d i t i o n a l forms of a t t a c h m e n t under t h e D e b t o r s ( S c o t l a n d ) A c t , 1838, known as p o i n d i n g and i n h i b i t i o n . I t i s seen t h a t S c o t t i s h p r o c e d u r e 42 does n o t e x t e n d t o t h e c l a i m s o f t h e Mareva and i n any e v e n t , may soon become e x t i n c t as t h e U n i t e d Kingdom e n t e r s f u l l y i n t o i t s E.E.C. commitments. (C) ELSEWHERE IN EUROPE The custom i n F r a n c e a p p e a r s c l o s e s t t o L o r d Denning's i n i t i a l i n t e n t i o n . F r e n c h law, w i t h i t s Roman and German c i v i l law base, a u t h o r i z e s c r e d i t o r s t o a t t a c h p r o p e r t y o f t h e i r d e b t o r s when speed i s i m p o r t a n t and payment of t h e d e b t i s c l e a r l y endangered. R e l i e f o f a p r o v i s i o n a l n a t u r e s o l e l y , t h e a t t a c h m e n t known as s a i s i e c o n s e r v a t o i r e was u n t i l 1955 a r e s t r i c t i v e remedy a v a i l a b l e o n l y i n 11 5 c o m m e r c i a l c a s e s b u t i t has s i n c e been broadened somewhat t o 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 law w o r l d one would 11 6 d e s c r i b e as d e b t . The most e x t e n s i v e o f t h e forms of p r e -t r i a l f o r e i g n a t t a c h m e n t , i t p r o v i d e s an i d e a l model f o r t h e Mareva i n j u n c t i o n . A v a i l a b l e i n a s i m i l a r way under t h e 11 7 Quebec Code o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e , t h i s p r o c e d u r a l r u l e e n a b l e s a p l a i n t i f f t o a p p l y t o a j u d g e of t h e c o u r t i n t h e a r e a i n w h i c h a d e f e n d a n t i s n o r m a l l y r e s i d e n t o r i n w h i c h h i s a s s e t s a r e p r e s e n t , ex p a r t e i f r e q u i r e d by t h e c i r c u m -s t a n c e s , f o r a p r o v i s i o n a l o r d e r p r e v e n t i n g d i s p o s i t i o n o f p r o p e r t y u n t i l t h e c o u r t has h e a r d and d e c i d e d t h e m e r i t s of t h e c l a i m . P e t i t i o n i n g f o r such an o r d e r , t h e p l a i n t i f f must 43 d e s c r i b e why a t t a c h m e n t i s r e q u i r e d , p r o v i d e a s p e c i f i c d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e p r o p e r t y t o be a t t a c h e d and g i v e a f f i r m a t i o n s t h a t h i s c l a i m i s w e l l - f o u n d e d and t h a t speedy a c t i o n i s e s s e n t i a l t o e n s u r e e v e n t u a l payment of t h e 11 8 judgment. Once t h e o r d e r i s o b t a i n e d , t h e d e b t o r may s e c u r e i t s c a n c e l l a t i o n o n l y by c o n t e s t i n g t h e m e r i t s o f i t s g r a n t i n g b e f o r e a j u d g e of t h e c o u r t o r by g i v i n g s e c u r i t y f o r payment of any judgment w h i c h may be r e c o v e r e d 119 a g a i n s t him. I n c o m m e r c i a l m a t t e r s , i f t h e d e b t o r i s a r e g i s t e r e d merchant, a p l a i n t i f f may a l s o g e t t h e c o u r t ' s a u t h o r i t y t o r e g i s t e r a t e m p o r a r y f i l i n g a g a i n s t t h e d e b t o r ' s b u s i n e s s u n t i l judgment i s r e c o v e r e d . T h i s l a t t e r s t e p would appear t o o p e r a t e as a pre-judgment l i e n o r n o t i c e as 1 20 p o s s e s s i o n o f p r o p e r t y does n o t change i n t h e p r o c e d u r e . A t t a c h m e n t by s a i s e c o n s e r v a t o i r e does not a p p l y t o r e a l p r o p e r t y a s s e t s . I t i s not a r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t t h e d e b t o r be f o r e i g n ; i n f a c t , two f u r t h e r forms o f a t t a c h m e n t , s a i s i e 1 21 a r r e t , 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 s a i s i e f o r a i n e a r e a l s o a v a i l a b l e . The l a s t m e n t i o n e d i s s p e c i f i c a l l y d e s i g n e d t o a t t a c h p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y o f d e b t o r s who have n e i t h e r d o m i c i l e n o r r e s i d e n c e where t h e c r e d i t o r l i v e s and i s d e s c r i b e d 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 i n t e n d e d t o p r o t e c t merchants 44 who g i v e c r e d i t t o t r a v e l l i n g salesmen 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 S a i s i e c o n s e r v a t o i r e , l i k e e a r l y London custom, was b r o u g h t about f o r c o m m e r c i a l p u r p o s e s , t o p r e v e n t h a r d s h i p ; l i k e t h e Mareva i n j u n c t i o n , i t i s s e c u r e d v e r y q u i c k l y , 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 from f r u s t r a t i n g t h e ends o f j u s t i c e . The o t h e r European p r a c t i c e s g e n e r a l l y have impediments n ot found i n t h e c u r r e n t Mareva p r a c t i c e and a r e not e x t e n s i v e l y u s e d . German p r a c t i c e , c r i t i c i s e d by t h e o t h e r E.E.C. p a r t i c i p a n t s , does n o t appear t o be e x t e n s i v e l y c a l l e d upon e x c e p t i n t h e c a s e o f a b s c o n d i n g f o r e i g n d e b t o r s and can t h u s be e q u a t e d t o t h e C a n a d i a n l e g i s l a t i o n d e s i g n e d f o r t h e 1 24 same p u r p o s e . On a p p l i c a t i o n , s u p p o r t e d by sworn a f f i d a v i t s , a l o c a l c r e d i t o r i s e n t i t l e d t o an i n t e r i m o r d e r i i n t h e nature' o f an i n j u n c t i o n e i t h e r t o a r r e s t a s s e t s o f t h e d e b t o r o r " t o 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 im-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 t h e r e a l i s a t i o n o f ( h i s ) r i g h t s . "125 126 The p r o c e s s i s known as " E i n s t w e i l i g e V e r f u g u n g " . S a i d t o be o f g r e a t p r a c t i c a l i m p o r t a n c e i n d e a l i n g w i t h f o r e i g n e r s and "among t h e b e s t f e a t u r e s o f 1 27 German c i v i l p r o c e d u r e , " t h e r e l i e f i s t o e n a b l e t h e c r e d i t o r t o o b t a i n s e c u r i t y f o r h i s c o n t e s t e d c l a i m w h i l e a l a w s u i t i s p e n d i n g , and even b e f o r e i t s t a r t s and i s a v a i l a b l e i f t h e c r e d i t o r "can e s t a b l i s h f a c t s w h i c h l e a d t o th e 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 en f o r c e m e n t 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 t a k e s t e p s w h i c h w i l l r e n d e r t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f judgment sub-s t a n t i a l l y more d i f f i c u l t o r even i m p o s s i b l e . " 1 2 8 I n t h e N e t h e r l a n d s , t h e r u l e s o f c i v i l p r o c e d u r e e n a b l i n g p r o v i s i o n a l a t t a c h m e n t , c o n s e r v a t o i r 1 29 b e l a g , appear more r e s t r i c t i v e , a r e r e s e r v e d f o r excep-t i o n a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s and i n t h e v i e w o f a t l e a s t one c u r r e n t w r i t e r , a r e s u s p e c t i n t h e i r f u t u r e c o n t i n u a t i o n because o f 1 30 the E.E.C. C o n v e n t i o n of"1968 e a r l i e r m e n t i o n e d . (D) IN AMERICA A l a r g e number o f Ame r i c a n s t a t e s im-p o r t e d t h e E n g l i s h custom o f t h e London c o u r t s b e f o r e t h a t p r a c t i c e f e l l i n t o d i s r e p u t e and was abandoned. W h i l e i t was " a c t e d on by a number o f t h e c o l o n i e s because i t s u i t e d t h e needs o f an e x p a n d i n g c r e d i t s economy and o f a p e o p l e , a v e r s e t o i m p r i s o n m e n t f o r d e b t , who t r a v e l l e d a t w i l l among l i m i t e d | 131 s o v e r e i g n s t a t e s s p r e a d o v e r a l a r g e t e r r i t o r y , " t h e p r e -46 t r i a l a t t a c h m e n t p r o c e s s e s used i n j u r i s d i c t i o n s o f o u r n e i g h b o u r s t o t h e s o u t h have s u f f e r e d a c h e c k e r e d h i s t o r y s i n c e enactment of t h e F o u r t e e n t h Amendment t o t h e U.S. C o n s t i t u t i o n , r e l a t e d t o due p r o c e s s . The U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t i n t h e p e r i o d from 1969 t o 1975 s t r u c k down a number o f e x i s t i n g s t a t e s t a t u t e s f o r t h e i r f a i l u r e t o p r o v i d e an e a r l y h e a r i n g of an a t t a c h i n g p l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m . S e v e r a l models o f f o r e i g n a t t a c h m e n t , i n much r e v i s e d form, s t i l l e x i s t , p r i m a r i l y on t h e A t l a n t i c s e a b o a r d a l t h o u g h t h e y a l s o r e m a i n i n m o d i f i e d measure i n W i s c o n s i n , L o u i s i a n a and G e o r g i a . The c i v i l p r a c t i s e r u l e s o f New York S t a t e , o f t e n t h e most c r i t i c i s e d , w i l l a l l o w an i n s t a n c e f o r c o m p a r i s o n . A r t i c l e 62. o f t h e New York Code of C i v i l 132 P r o c e d u r e p e r m i t s a p l a i n t i f f t o b r i n g an ex p a r t e a p p l i c a t i o n a t t h e commencement of an a c t i o n f o r an o r d e r o f a t t a c h m e n t o f a d e b t o r ' s a s s e t s found w i t h i n t h e j u r i s i d i c -t i o n o f t h e s t a t e , i f : (a) t h e d e f e n d a n t i s an i n d i v i d u a l n o n - r e s i d e n t o r f o r e i g n c o r p o r a t i o n , o r g a n i s e d o u t s i d e t h e s t a t e and n o t d o i n g b u s i n e s s w i t h i n , o r (b) a d e f e n d a n t who i s d o m i c i l e d i n New Y o r k i s about t o remove h i s a s s e t s from t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o r t h e r e i s e v i d e n c e of h i s i n t e n t i o n t o d e f r a u d c r e d i t o r s by a s s i g n i n g o r encum-133 b e r i n g h i s p r o p e r t y . Commentary on t h e R u l e s makes i t p l a i n i t i s b o t h a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l and a s e c u r i t y d e v i c e d i r e c t e d p r i m a r i l y a t f o r e i g n d e f e n d a n t s and o t h e r s who a t t e m p t t o f r u s t r a t e t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f a judgment t h a t may be r e n d e r e d 134 i n f a v o u r o f t h e p l a i n t i f f . I t i s i n t h e n a t u r e o f p r o -v i d i n g q u a s i i n rem j u r i s d i c t i o n t o t h e c o u r t , on a t e m p o r a r y b a s i s o n l y , r e q u i r i n g a s e r i e s o f p e r f e c t i n g s t e p s , n o t d i s s i m i l a r t o t h e S c o t t i s h d e v i c e . I t was most r e c e n t l y a l t e r e d i n 1977 as 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 i f s e c u r e d ex p a r t e , such o r d e r s must now be c o n f i r m e d by t h e c o u r t , w i t h due n o t i c e t o t h e d e f e n d a n t , w i t h i n f i v e d a y s . The p l a i n t i f f i n a p p l y i n g by m o t i o n must p r o v i d e e v i d e n c e under new R u l e 6212 t o show t h a t " i t i s 1 35 p r o b a b l e t h a t he w i l l s u c c e e d on t h e m e r i t s o f h i s c a s e . " The burden on a p l a i n t i f f has been d e s c r i b e d as b e i n g : " . . . 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 o f i r r e p a r a b l e i n j u r y , o r . . . v e r y s e r i o u s q u e s t i o n s g o i n g t o t h e 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 ( l e a n s ) s h a r p l y i n ( t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s ) f a v o r . " 1 3 6 The same New York commentator e x p e c t s c o n t i n u i n g f u r t h e r r e s t r i c t i o n s on t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f t h e i n t e r l o c u t o r y remedy i n t h e f a c e o f a d d i t i o n a l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l c h a l l e n g e s . W h i l e one might argue t h a t A m e r i c a n p r o c e d u r e c o d i f i e s i n major measure some of t h e same c o u r s e s open t o 48 C a n a d i a n l i t i g a n t s under a b s c o n d i n g d e b t o r and r e l a t e d l e g i s -l a t i o n , t h e New York example does e x t e n d , a l b e i t by a w e i g h t y burden o f p r o o f , s t a t u t o r y and p r o c e d u r a l r u l e s a v a i l a b l e i n t h i s c o u n t r y and i n Europe p r i o r t o t h e a r r i v a l o f t h e Mareva. S e q u e s t r a t i o n i n m a t r i m o n i a l a c t i o n s i s p e r m i t t e d by t h e New York D o m e s t i c R e l a t i o n s Law under a u t h o r i t y b r o a d l y s i m i l a r t o l e g i s l a t i o n now i n e f f e c t i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a and 137 r a p i d l y s p r e a d i n g t o most o t h e r common law p r o v i n c e s . I n c o n c l u s i o n , i t would appear c l e a r t h a t t h e e a r l i e r E n g l i s h custom o f f o r e i g n a t t a c h m e n t was abandoned f o r c o m m e r c i a l and p r a c t i c a l r e a s o n s , and t h a t laws p r e s e n t l y i n p l a c e i n E.E.C. member n a t i o n s a r e c u r r e n t l y b e i n g d i s m a n t l e d on t h e C o n t i n e n t a t t h e same t i m e as A m e r i c a n e q u i v a l e n t s a r e under s u s t a i n e d a t t a c k c o n s t i t u -t i o n a l l y and s u f f e r i n g j u d i c i a l d i l u t i o n y e a r . b y y e a r . W i t h q u e s t i o n a b l e , even f a u l t y , soundness t o t h e i r l e g a l l o g i c , t h e B r i t i s h and now t h e i r Commonwealth c o u s i n s have r e s u r -r e c t e d t h e p r a c t i c e w i t h r e m a r k a b l e d a r i n g and s u c c e s s . As i t has come t o be a c c e p t e d i n E n g l i s h and C a n a d i a n c o u r t s , i t i s f a r more t h a n a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l , q u a s i i n rem d e v i c e b u t as we now see i t , i s a s u b s t a n t i v e new remedy and r e s t r i c t i o n s on i t s use a r e s t i l l 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 put i n p l a c e . 49 FOOTNOTES CHAPTER IV 89. Rasu M a r i t i m e S.A. v. Perusahaan e t a l , s u p r a , f n 66. 90. I b i d , a t p. 331 (A.E.R.) 91. Bohun, W. P r i v i l e g i a L o n d i n i . 3 r d ed., 1723. I t i s c o n s i d e r e d 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 t h e Customs o f London. 92. P u l l i n g , A l e x a n d e r . The Laws, Customs, Usages and Reg- u l a t i o n s o f t h e C i t y and P o r t o f London. 2nd ed., 1854. 93. I b i d , f n 89, a t p. 331 (A.E.R.) 94. L e v y , s u p r a , f n 46, a t p. 405, p r o b a b l y one o f t h e most t h o r o u g h a c c o u n t s p r e s e n t l y a v a i l a b l e o f t h e e a r l y custom. 94a. See s u p r a , C h a p t e r I I ( C ) , pp. 16-17. 95. P r o b a b l y even t o Magna C h a r t a . See C h a p t e r IX t h e r e o f g u a r a n t e e i n g t h e l i b e r t i e s and customs o f t h e C i t y o f London. 96. L e v y , s u p r a , f n 46, a t p. 425. 97. (1725) 12 Geo. 1, c. 29; (1732) 5 Geo. 2, c. 27 and (1832) 2 W i l l . 4, c. 39, i n t e r a l i a . 98. See t h e Common Law P r o c e d u r e A c t s o f 1852 and 1854, 15 & 16 V i c t . , c. 76 and 17 & 18 V i c t . , c. 125. 99. See s u p r a , f n 47. 100. I b i d . 101. 25 H a l s b u r y ' s Laws of E n g l a n d . 3 r d ed., 1958, p a r a . 1 081 . 102. B o t h R. M o r r i s i n h i s v e r y t h o r o u g h s t u d y o f t h e E n g l i s h p r a c t i c e i n S e l e c t Cases o f t h e Mayor's C o u r t of New York C i t y (1674-1874), p u b l i s h e d i n 1935, a t p. 61 and L e v y , s u p r a , a t p. 424 come t o t h i s same c o n c l u s i o n . 103. L e v y , s u p r a , f n 46, a t p. 426. 104. Rasu M a r i t i m e , s u p r a , f n 66, per L o r d Denning a t o. 332. 50 105. THE SISKINA, s u p r a , f n 64, a t p. 813. 106. I b i d , a t p. 81 4. 107. I b i d , i n t h e House o f L o r d s , a t p. 826 p e r L o r d D i p l o c k . 108. I b i d , a t p. 827. 109. W a l k e r , 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. 3r d 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. and M e r r y , E. W. P r i n c i p l e s and P r a c t i c e  o f S c o t s Law. London: B u t t e r w o r t h s , 1971. A t p. 232. 111. I b i d . 112. N o r t h v. S t e w a r t (1890) 17 R. (HL) 60, per L o r d Watson a t p. 63. A l s o see 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. (1896) 23 R. 500, p e r L o r d M'Laren a t p. 503. 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.  L t d . [1975] 2 A l l E.R. 424, p e r L o r d K i l b r a n d o n a t p. 435. 114. I b i d , p e r L o r d H a i l s h a m a t p. 429. 115. 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 H e r z o g , P e t e r . C i v i l P r o c e d u r e i n  F r a n c e . Volume 3 o f t h e Co l u m b i a U n i v e r s i t y S c h o o l o f Law P r o j e c t 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 , 1967. A t p. 198. 116. I b i d , a t p. 235. 117. Code o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e o f Quebec, A r t i c l e s 733 f f . 118. H e r z o g , s u p r a , f n 115, a t p. 236. 119. A r t i c l e 50 o f t h e Code o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e . 120. A r t i c l e 53 o f t h e Code; see a l s o H e r z o g , s u p r a , f n 115, a t p. 237. 121. A r t i c l e 54 o f t h e Code o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e . 122. A r t i c l e s 822-5 o f t h e Code o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e . 123. H e r z o g , s u p r a , f n 115, a t p. 237. 124. German Code o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e (ZPO), s. 916 f f . 125. Cohn, E . J . Manual o f German Law. Volume 2. London: E a s t e r n P r e s s , 1971. A t p. 243. 51 126. German Code o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e , s. 936. 127. Cohn, s u p r a , f n 125, p. 243. 128. I b i d , a t p. 244. 129. R u l e s o f Dutch C i v i l P r o c e d u r e (J3.Rv.), A r t i c l e s 121 it. 130. S t e i n , P.A. I n t r o d u c t i o n t o Dutch Law f o r F o r e i g n  L a w y e r s . E d i t e d by D.C. Fokkema e t a l f o r t h e N e t h e r l a n d ' s C o m p a r a t i v e Law A s s o c i a t i o n . D e v e n t i s : K l u w e r , 1978. A t p. 259. 131. L e v y , s u p r a , f n 46, a t p. 401. 132. McKinney's C o n s o l i d a t e d Laws o f New York A n n o t a t e d . » Book 7 B on C i v i l P r a c t i s e Law and R u l e s . New Y o r k , 1 980. 133. See a l s o comments o f H o d g e k i s s , C.C. i n (1982) 56 A . L . J . 310 a t p. 313 on t h i s t o p i c . 134. M c K i n n e y ' s , s u p r a , f n 132. 135. I b i d , R u l e 6212. 136. D o n n e l l y , S.J.M. "Commercial Law 1977 Review" (1978) 29 S y r a c u s e Law Review 327, a t p. 372. 137. Under s s . 233 and 243 o f t h e New York Domestic  R e l a t i o n s Law; a l s o see C.P.L.R. 6201 and compare w i t h f n 27, s u p r a . 52 CHAPTER V - JURISDICTION (A) STATUTORY BASIS W h i l e a d o p t i n g d i s c a r d e d p r a c t i c e s o f p r o v i s i o n a l f o r e i g n a t t a c h m e n t as a b a s i s f o r i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of t h e Mareva p r i n c i p l e may n o t have been w h o l l y r a t i o n a l , t h e E n g l i s h c o u r t was on f i r m e r ground w i t h t h e 1925 s t a t -u t o r y j u r i s d i c t i o n . As l a t e r c a s e s have shown, t h e d o c t r i n e i s 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 o r d e r 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 l i t i g a t i o n . Viewed from t h a t p e r s p e c t i v e , t h e a l a r u m r a i s e d a g a i n s t i t s shaky e a r l y f o u n d a t i o n i s l e s s d i s t u r b i n g . R e c e n t l y , perhaps f o r g r e a t e r c e r t a i n t y , t h e U n i t e d 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 37(3) o f t h e Supreme C o u r t A c t , 1981, w h i c h d e a l s w i t h t h e p r i n c i p l e d i r e c t l y : j "The power o f t h e High 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 removing from t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e H i g h C o u r t , o r o t h e r w i s e d e a l i n g w i t h , a s s e t s l o c a t e d 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 as c a s e s where he i s n o t , d o m i c i l e d , r e s -i d e n t o r p r e s e n t w i t h i n t h a t j u r i s d i c t i o n . " 1 3 8 The l e g i s l a t i o n was e f f e c t i v e from J a n u a r y 1, 1982 and t h e r e -by e n t r e n c h e d L o r d Denning's i n v e n t i o n . 53 N e i t h e r C a n a d i a n nor o t h e r Commonwealth a u t h o r i t i e s have y e t ad o p t e d t h e B r i t i s h c o u r s e o f s t a t u t o r y c l a r i f i c a t i o n o r amendment. As i n e a r l y U n i t e d Kingdom c a s e s , l e g a l j u r i s d i c t i o n f o r t h e p r o c e s s i s o n l y b r o a d l y encompassed by s t a t u t e . S e c t i o n 36 o f t h e Law and E q u i t y 1 39 A c t , t h e B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a e q u i v a l e n t t o s e c t i o n 45 o f t h e Supreme C o u r t o f J u d i c a t u r e ( C o n s o l i d a t i o n ) A c t (U . K . ) , p r o v i d e s : "36. A mandamus o r an 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 - m a n a g e r a p p o i n t e d by an 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 c a s e s i n whi c h i t a p p e a r s t o t h e C o u r t  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 and 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 t h e C o u r t 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 a s k e d e i t h e r b e f o r e , 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 , t o p r e v e n t any t h r e a t e n e d o r apprehended waste o r t r e s p a s s , t h e i n j u n c t i o n may be g r a n t e d i f t h e C o u r t 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 not i n p o s s e s s i o n under any c l a i m o r t i t l e o r o t h e r w i s e o r , i f o u t o f 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 , and whether 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 a r e 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] I n a d d i t i o n t o i n h e r e n t j u r i s d i c t i o n o f th e Supreme C o u r t o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a as a " c o u r t o f o r i g i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n . . . ( w i t h ) c o m p l e t e c o g n i s a n c e o f a l l p l e a s \and ... j u r i s d i c t i o n i n a l l c a s e s , c i v i l and c r i m i n a l \ 140 141 th e R u l e s o f C o u r t p r o v i d e f o r t h e g r a n t i n g o f i n t e r l o c u t o r y i n j u n c t i o n s i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s encompassing t h e Mareva r e l i e f . R u l e s 44 and 45 c o n t a i n d i r e c t i o n s a p p l i c a b l e t o a l l i n j u n c t i o n s , permanent, i n t e r i m , i n t e r l o c u t o r y , ex  p a r t e o r c o n t e s t e d , and t h e i r p r o v i s i o n s i n e n t i r e t y a p p l y t o t h e Mareva s i t u a t i o n as we s h a l l l a t e r see. I n t h e f i r s t r e p o r t e d C a n a d i a n case t o 1 42 e x e r c i s e Mareva j u r i s d i c t i o n , M anousakis v. Manousakis i n 1979, Mr. J u s t i c e T r a i n o r o f t h e B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a Supreme C o u r t r e l i e d on t h e b r o a d p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e Law and E q u i t y 1 43 A c t . N ippon Yusen K a i s h a v. K a r a g e o r g i s , t h e f i r s t B r i t -i s h a p p e l l a t e d e c i s i o n , was a l s o used as s u p p o r t f o r an o r d e r p r o h i b i t i n g a husband from d i s p o s i n g o f h i s s h a r e s i n a b u s i n e s s p e n d i n g d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f a w i f e ' s e n t i t l e m e n t t o s h a r e i n t h e i r v a l u e under f a m i l y law l e g i s l a t i o n . J udges o f t h e County C o u r t s i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o g r a n t Mareva r e l i e f under s e c -144 t i o n s 21 and 39 o f t h e County C o u r t s A c t i n a c t i o n s com-menced i n t h e i r 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 o f t h e Supreme C o u r t , have by v i r t u e o f s e c t i o n 11(2) o f t h e 145 Supreme C o u r t A c t t h e same j u r i s d i c t i o n under t h e Law and  E q u i t y A c t and t h e R u l e s o f C o u r t as Supreme C o u r t j u d g e s . A p p e n d i x I I I c o n t a i n s a l i s t i n g o f example c a s e s where j u d g e s of b o t h 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 i n as y e t u n r e p o r t e d d e c i s i o n s . 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 C o l u m b i a has no such j u r i s d i c t i o n . i I n O n t a r i o , t h e e n a b l i n g s t a t u t e i s 1 46 s i m i l a r as a r e t h o s e i n t h e r e m a i n i n g p r o v i n c e s and t e r -r i t o r i e s . 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 l e v e l i n t h i s c o u n t r y , t h e c o u r t s have c o n s i s t e n t l y r u l e d t h a t j u r i s d i c t i o n o f p r o v i n c i a l s u p e r i o r c o u r t s t o g r a n t 1 47 Mareva r e l i e f i s c l e a r . I n Humphries v. B u r a g l i a , t h e New B r u n s w i c k C o u r t o f A p p e a l s a i d : .... t h e C o u r t s o f 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 (under 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. 1973, 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 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 might 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 th e p l a i n t i f f . " 1 4 8 L a s t w i n t e r , a p p e a l c o u r t s i n M a n i t o b a , O n t a r i o and B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a a c t e d . s i m i l a r l y . I n F e i g e l m a n e t a_l v. Ae t n a 1 49 F i n a n c i a l S e r v i c e s L t d . e t a_l, Matas J.A. s p e a k i n g f o r t h e m a j o r i t y i n t h e M a n i t o b a c o u r t d e c l a r e d : " S e c t i o n 59(1) o f t h e Queen's Bench  A c t , R.S.M. 1970, c. C 280, i s t h e b a s i s o f t h e c o u r t ' s a u t h o r i t y t o i s s u e (a M a r e v a ) . . . i n j u n c t i o n . " 1 50 Three weeks l a t e r , MacKinnon A.C.J.O. f o r t h e O n t a r i o C o u r t 151 o f A p p e a l , s a i d i n C h i t e l e t a l v. R o t h b a r t 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 e x e r c i s e o f t h e d i s c r e t i o n g i v e n a c o u r t 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. 1980, t o g r a n t a Mareva i n j u n c t i o n . " 1 5 2 56 and a g a i n : "The Mareva i n j u n c t i o n i s her e and her e t o s t a y and p r o p e r l y so...."153 The B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a C o u r t o f A p p e a l had i t s f i r s t o p p o r t u n i t y i n two weeks' t i m e i n S e k i s u i House K a b u s h i 1 54 K a i s h a v. Nagashima e t a l when C h i e f J u s t i c e Nemetz on b e h a l f o f t h e t h r e e man coram c o n f i r m e d t h e a u t h o r i t y o f s e c t i o n 36 o f t h e B.C. s t a t u t e f o r i s s u i n g a Mareva 155 i n j u n c t i o n . As e a r l i e r m e n t i o n e d , j u r i s d i c t i o n o f 1 56 th 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 c o u r t o f r e c o r d 157 h a v i n g l i m i t e d b u t o r i g i n a l powers, i s d e r i v e d from s e c t i o n 44 o f t h e F e d e r a l C o u r t A c t : "44. 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 award, 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 c a s e s i n w h i c h i t a p p e a r s t o  th e C o u r t t o be j u s t and c o n v e n i e n t  t o do s o , and any such 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 s u c h 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 e f f e c t o f s e c t i o n 22 o f t h e s t a t u t e ( " i n a l l c a s e s i n w h i c h a c l a i m f o r r e l i e f i s made...") and s e c t i o n 2(m) ( " r e l i e f i n c l u d e s e v e r y s p e c i e s o f r e l i e f whether by way o f damages, pyament o f money, i n j u n c t i o n . . . . " ) c o u l d a l s o be u t i l i z e d 57 a l t h o u g h t h a t would p r o b a b l y be u n n e c e s s a r y i n l i g h t of t h e 158 b r o a d language o f s e c t i o n 44. Those j u d g e s o f t h e F e d e r a l C o u r t who 1 59 have g r a n t e d Mareva i n j u n c t i o n s t o t h i s d a t e appear t o have r e l i e d upon s e c t i o n 44 o f t h e s t a t u t e and t h e R u l e s o f 1 60 C o u r t . R u l e s 469 and 470 a r e s u b s t a n t i a l l y s i m i l a r i n e f f e c t t o p r o v i s i o n s r e f e r r e d t o i n t h e B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a Supreme C o u r t R u l e s c o n c e r n i n g i n t e r l o c u t o r y o r d e r s b o t h f o r 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 . I n one i m p o r t a n t p a r t i c u l a r however, as r e g a r d s ex p a r t e Mareva i n j u n c t i o n s , j u d g e s o f t h e F e d e r a l C o u r t a r e r e s t r i c t e d t o g r a n t i n g i n t e r -l o c u t o r y o r d e r s o n l y by way o f i n t e r i m i n j u n c t i o n " f o r 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 n o t been g i v e n t o t h e d e f e n d a n t . The p r o v i n c i a l •Supreme C o u r t would n ot appear t o have such r e s t r i c t i o n s on ex p a r t e a p p l i c a t i o n s . (B) EFFECT OF OTHER REMEDIES The e x i s t e n c e of a t t a c h m e n t r e m e d i e s , as an argument a g a i n s t i m p o r t a t i o n o f t h e Mareva p r i n c i p l e 1 62 r a i s e d by e a r l y commentators, does n o t a f f e c t t h e c o u r t s ' r e a d i n e s s t o u t i l i z e Mareva. T a l l i s J . (as he t h e n was) i n 1 63 ,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. Hunt s a i d : i 58 "... 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 a r e r u l e s o f 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 not be i s s u e d w h i c h 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 a b s c o n d i n g d e b t o r s a r e not i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e 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 such 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 of g r a n t i n g a Mareva t y p e 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 t h e M a n i t o b a c a s e , Matas J.A. added: " I f a c l a i m a n t . . . c o u l d b r i n g h i s c l a i m w i t h i n t h e e s t a b l i s h e d p r o c e d u r e s under e i t h e r t h e Queen 1s Bench R u l e s o r t h e 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 Mareva i n j u n c t i o n . I n my v i e w , t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e s e p r o v i s i o n s does n o t p r e c l u d e t h e i s s u a n c e o f a Mareva 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 . " 1 6 5 Huband J.A., i n d i s s e n t , w h i l e a d m i t t i n g t h a t t h e M a n i t o b a 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 Mareva o r d e r s , d e c l i n e d t o do so i n F e i g e l m a n , i n p a r t because o f t h e e x i s t e n c e o f o t h e r p o s s i b l e r e m e d i e s : "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 F r a u d u l e n t Conveyances A c t , p r e -judgment g a r n i s h m e n t p r o c e e d i n g s , and o r d e r s o f a t t a c h m e n t draw one t o two c o n c l u s i o n s : (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 Mareva i n j u n c t i o n s h o u l d not be i s s u e d where o t h e r r emedies a r e a v a i l a b l e , (2) I f t h e o t h e r remedies a r e not 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 Mareva  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 The o t h e r C a n a d i a n j u r i s d i c t i o n s have s i m i l a r l y welcomed t h i s a d d i t i o n a l p r e - t r i a l s t e p d e s p i t e a v a i l a b l e a t t a c h m e n t r e m e d i e s . Only New B r u n s w i c k has moved by t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f p r a c t i c e r u l e s t o r e g u l a t e o r e n t r e n c h t h e 167 p r a c t i s e . F o l l o w i n g t h e d e c i s i o n i n Humphries, t h e New B r u n s w i c k C i v i l P r o c e d u r e R u l e s were amended and a new R u l e , now 40.03, was p u t i n p l a c e i n c o r p o r a t i n g t h e Mareva p r i n -c i p l e . Under t h e h e a d i n g " I n j u n c t i o n F o r P r e s e r v a t i o n o f A s s e t s (Mareva I n j u n c t i o n ) , " t h e new r u l e c o d i f i e s t h e p r o -168 c e d u r e w i t h o u t a l t e r i n g t h e p r i n c i p l e . I n t h e P r o v i n c e o f Nova S c o t i a , a spe-c i f i c p r o c e d u r e i s a v a i l a b l e t o p e r m i t an ex p a r t e o r d e r f o r a t t a c h m e n t i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s where a Mareva might o t h e r w i s e be 169 a p p r o p r i a t e . R u l e 49 o f t h e Nova S c o t i a C i v i l P r o c e d u r e R u l e s p r o v i d e s t h a t a p l a i n t i f f must p o s t a bond as w e l l as p r o v e t h e r e q u i r e d f a c t s by a f f i d a v i t ; s i m i l a r l y , s e c u r i t y may a l s o be p o s t e d by a d e f e n d a n t t o r e g a i n p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e p r o p e r t y a t t a c h e d . (C) OTHER JURISDICTIONS V I f one l o o k s t o o t h e r r e a c h e s o f t h e \ Commonwealth, one can see t h a t t h e c o u r t s have based t h e i r j u r i s d i c t i o n on even b r o a d e r s t a t u t o r y powers. I n t h e f A u s -\ 60 t r a l i a n s t a t e s , s e c t i o n 23 o f t h e Supreme C o u r t A c t (N.S.W.) i s an example: "The C o u r t s h a l l have a l 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 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 . " The New S o u t h Wales C o u r t o f A p p e a l approved t h e Mareva p r i n c i p l e r e c e n t l y under t h a t a u t h o r i t y i n R i l e y McKay P t y . L t d . v. 1 70 McKay and A n o t h e r . / 1 71 I n New Z e a l a n d , t h e s t a t u t e i s e q u a l l y g e n e r a l 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 have 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 coming 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 laws o f New Zealand."172 D e s p i t e a s i m i l a r l y b r o a d e n t i t l e m e n t t o pre-judgment c h a r g i n g o r d e r s t o a t t a c h a s s e t s o f f l e e i n g o r absconded 173 d e b t o r s under t h e i r Code o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e , t h e c o u r t s o f 174 New Z e a l a n d have 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) CAUSE OF ACTION One f u r t h e r m a t t e r r e l a t e d t o t h e c o u r t s ' j u r i s d i c t i o n must be r a i s e d . I t a r o s e i n t h e o n l y House of L o r d ' s d e c i s i o n r e v i e w i n g t h e Mareva p r a c t i c e , The 175 SISKINA, and has been q u o t e d w i t h a p p r o b a t i o n i n t h e C a n a d i a n c o u r t s . 61 I n t h a t c a s e , t h e owners of c a r g o l a d e n on SISKINA c l a i m e d damages a g a i n s t t h e s h i p o w n e r , a o n e - s h i p Panamanian company. That c l a i m was g o v e r n e d by I t a l i a n law. The v e s s e l was l a t e r l o s t i n t h e M e d i t e r r a n e a n and as a consequence i n s u r a n c e monies became p a y a b l e i n London. The c a r g o owners i s s u e d a w r i t i n t h e E n g l i s h H i g h C o u r t c l a i m i n g damages and an i n j u n c t i o n r e s t r a i n i n g t h e owners from d i s -p o s i n g o f t h e i n s u r a n c e p r o c e e d s . K e r r J . s e t a s i d e t h e w r i t and d i s c h a r g e d t h e i n j u n c t i o n on t h e ground t h a t t h e E n g l i s h c o u r t had no j u r i s d i c t i o n t o g i v e l e a v e t o s e r v e p r o c e s s o u t s i d e t h e c o u n t r y . H i s r u l i n g was r e v e r s e d by a m a j o r i t y of t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l ( L o r d Denning M.R. and Lawton L . J . , B r i d g e L . J . d i s s e n t i n g ) b u t was r e s t o r e d by t h e House of 1 76 L o r d s . The c l a i m i t s e l f , t h e L o r d s d e t e r m i n e d , was n o t such a cause of a c t i o n as t o e n t i t l e t h e p l a i n t i f f s t o o b t a i n l e a v e f o r s e r v i c e out o f 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 . L o r d D i p l o c k , who d e l i v e r e d t h e l e a d i n g s p e e c h , s a i d : "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 n o t a cause of a c t i o n . I t c a n not s t a n d on i t s own. I t i s dependant 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 o ut 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 him o f a l e g a l o r e q u i t a b l e r i g h t o f t h e p l a i n t i f f f o r t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f w h i c h t h e d e f e n d a n t i s a n s w e r a b l e t o 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 . 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 t o t h e p r e - e x i s t i n g cause o f a c t i o n . " 1 7 7 62 The Mareva i n j u n c t i o n i s t h u s n o t a p p r o p r i a t e t o c l a i m s j u s t i c i a b l e o n l y i n f o r e i g n c o u r t s and a p l a i n t i f f must c l e a r l y b r i n g h i s p r i n c i p a l cause o f a c t i o n w i t h i n 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 t o w h i c h he makes a p p l i c a t i o n . The F e d e r a l C o u r t o f Canada, i n t h e o n l y 1 78 c a s e t h u s r e p o r t e d o f i t s Mareva e x p e r i e n c e , d i s m i s s e d a Mareva a p p l i c a t i o n when l e a v e t o s e r v e t h e Statement o f C l a i m ex j u r i s was d e n i e d by t h e chambers j u d g e . W h i l e c o u n s e l i n t h a t and o t h e r c a s e s have t h e n t u r n e d s u c c e s s f u l l y f o r t h e same r e l i e f t o p r o v i n c i a l s u p e r i o r c o u r t s where l e a v e t o s e r v e 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 , t h e i s s u e , i f and when c o n t e s t e d , w i l l r e m a i n an i s s u e o f forum  c o n v e n i e n s . A p l a i n t i f f o f n e c e s s i t y w i l l s t i l l be r e q u i r e d t o s a t i s f y t h e c o u r t w i t h r e s p e c t t o L o r d D i p l o c k ' s c o n c e r n t h a t t h e c o u r t i s a l s o competent t o a d j u d i c a t e on t h e p r i n c i p a l c l a i m a g a i n s t t h e p a r t i c u l a r d e f e n d a n t . 63 FOOTNOTES CHAPTER V 138. Supreme C o u r t A c t (U.K.), 1981 c. 54, i n t o f o r c e on J a n u a r y 1, 1982. 139. R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 224. 140. Supreme C o u r t A c t , R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 397, s. 8. 141. Supreme C o u r t R u l e s , 1979, R u l e s 44 and 45. 142. (1979) 10 B.C.L.R. P-21. (BCSC) 143. S u p r a , f n 9. 144. R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 72. 145. S u p r a , f n 140. 146. J u d i c a t u r e A c t , R.S.O. 1980, c. 223, s. 19 ( 1 ) . 147. (1982) 135 D.L.R. (3d) 535, 39 N.B.R. (2d) 674, 103 A.P.R. 674. 148. I b i d , p e r S t r a t t o n J.A. a t p. 547 (D.L.R.). 149. [1983] 143 D.L.R. (3d) 715, 2 W.W.R. 97. 150. I b i d , a t p. 721 (D.L.R.). 151. (1983) 39 O.R. (2d) 513, 141 D.L.R. (3d) 268. 152. I b i d , a t p. 531.(O.R.) 153. I b i d , a t p. 534.(O.R.) 154. S u p r a , f n 16. 155. I b i d , a t p. 6. 156. F e d e r a l C o u r t A c t , S.C. 1970-1971, c. 1, s. 3. 157. I b i d , s. 17. 158. I b i d , s s . 22 and 2 (m). 159. See s u p r a , f n 14 f o r l i s t i n g o f some u n r e p o r t e d 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, as amended. 64 161. R u l e 469 (2 ) . 162. F o r example, see Stockwood, s u p r a , f n 11, a t p. 97. 163. S u p r a , f n 13. 164. I b i d , a t p. 58 (D.L.R.). 165. S u p r a , f n 17, a t p. 722 (D.L.R.). 166. I b i d , a t p. 734. 167. S u p r a , f n 147. 168. See A p p e n d i x IV f o r f u l l t e x t o f t h e N.B. R u l e . 169. R u l e 49. I t s e x i s t e n c e d i d n o t p r e v e n t t h e c o u r t i n Parmar v. P a r c e r i a e t a l (1982) 141 D.L.R. (3d) 498 ( a t p. 505) from a l l o w i n g t h e Mareva o r d e r i n Nova S c o t i a . 170. S u p r a , f n 85. O t h e r A u s t r a l i a n c o u r t s have us e d a s i m i l a r s t a t e s t a t u t e . C f . P r a z n o v s k y v. S a b l y a c k [1977] 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 and Sanko S.S. Co. L t d . v. D.C. Commodi- t i e s ( A u s t r a l i a ) P r o p e r t y L t d . [1980] W.A.R. 51, as examples. 171. The J u d i c a t u r e A c t , R.S.N.Z. 172. I b i d , s. 16. See Hunt v. 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 [1980] 1 N.Z.L.R. 104. 173. Under R u l e 19 o f t h e New Z e a l a n d Code o f C i v i l 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 judgment i f he can 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 can show t h a t t h e d e b t o r i s " a b s e n t from New Z e a l a n d o r about 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 de-f e a t h i s c r e d i t o r s . " C f . 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 Z e a l a n d " (1980) New Z e a l a n d Law J o u r n a l 270. 174. From Systems and Programmes (N.Z.) L t d . v. P.R.C. Pub- l i c Management S e r v i c e s ( I n c . ) [1978] N.Z. R e c e n t Law 264; a l s o see t h e O c t o b e r 13, 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 Hunt d e c i s i o n , s u p r a , f n 171 . 175. S u p r a , f n 64. 176. The C o u r t o f A p p e a l d e c i s i o n i s r e p o r t e d b e g i n n i n g a t p. 806 ( A l l E.R.) w h i l e t h e House o f L o r d s ' o p i n i o n s b e g i n a t p. 821 ( A l l E.R.). 65 177. I b i d , a t p. 824. 178. E l s e g u r o I n c . v. Ssangyong S h i p p i n g Co. L t d . , s u p r a , f n 14. 66 CHAPTER V I - MAREVA GUIDELINES A. AMERICAN CYANAMID TEST As an e x c e p t i o n t o t h e g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e o f no e x e c u t i o n b e f o r e judgment, t h e Mareva i n j u n c t i o n s h o u l d n o t be, and i n p r a c t i c e i s n o t , g r a n t e d as a m a t t e r o f c o u r s e . W h i l e t h e h e a r t o f a p l a i n t i f f ' s c a s e i s d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f t h e r i s k t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s a s s e t s w i l l be removed from t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o r o t h e r w i s e d i s p o s e d so as t o n u l l i f y t h e e f f e c t o f f i n a l judgment, i t i s incumbent upon him i n m a t e r i a l f i l e d b e f o r e t h e c o u r t t o e s t a b l i s h h i s e n t i t l e m e n t t o t h i s u n i q u e remedy. As e a r l i e r m e n t i o n e d , t h e s e have been r e f e r r e d t o as t h e Mareva G u i d e l i n e s . Most a p p l i c a t i o n s a r e q u i a t i m e t : t h e p l a i n t i f f has not s u f f e r e d any i n j u r y o r l o s s and t h e d e f e n d a n t has not n o r m a l l y committed any wrong a g a i n s t t h e p l a i n t i f f , save u s u a l l y t h e non-payment o f a d e b t o r wrong w h i c h forms t h e p r i n c i p a l b a s i s of t h e f o r m e r ' s s u b s t a n t i v e cause o f a c t i o n . I t i s t h e f e a r o n l y t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t w i l l by f u t u r e a c t i o n s cause u n f a i r d i s a d v a n t a g e t o t h e p l a i n t i f f i n p u r s u i t o f h i s l a w f u l cause o f a c t i o n and remedy. As a form o f i n t e r l o c u t o r y i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f , t h e Mareva i s s u b j e c t t o t h e o r d i n a r y a p p r o a c h o f t h e c o u r t s t o a p p l i c a t i o n s i n t e r p a r t e s f o r p r o h i b i t o r y 1 79 i n j u n c t i o n s . I t i s t o be remembered t h a t i t i s a remedy, 180 not a cause o f a c t i o n i n i t s own r i g h t . The r u l e s l a i d down by L o r d D i p l o c k i n t h e House o f L o r d s i n 1975 i n A m e r i c a n Cyanamid Co. v. E t h i c o n L t d . , g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t e d i n 181 t h i s c o u n t r y and s p e c i f i c a l l y i n t h i s P r o v i n c e , have c l a r i f i e d t h e onus on an a p p l i c a n t . The O n t a r i o C o u r t o f 182 A p p e a l r e c e n t l y however, i n r e f e r r i n g t o t h e subsequent 1 83 d e c i s i o n o f t h e House o f L o r d s i n N.W.L. L t d . v. Woods, has e x p r e s s e d t h e l o n e v i e w t h a t t h e A m e r i c a n Cyanamid t e s t s may n o t be s u i t a b l e 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 . W h i l e i n E n g l a n d he need not e s t a b l i s h a p r i m a f a c i e c a s e t o e n t i t l e m e n t , a p l a i n t i f f must a t v e r y l e a s t s a t i s f y a c o u r t t h a t h i s c l a i m i s "not f r i v o l o u s o r v e x a t i o u s ; i n o t h e r words, t h a t t h e r e i s a s e r i o u s q u e s t i o n 1 84 t o be t r i e d . " E a r l y C a n a d i a n t r i a l judgments used o t h e r language i n d e n o t i n g t h e c u r r e n t l y v i e w e d , l e s s s t r i n g e n t r e -q u i r e m e n t s o f t h e a p p l i c a n t t o e s t a b l i s h v a l i d i t y o f h i s c l a i m b u t d e s p i t e v a r i a n c e i n a d j e c t i v a l d e s c r i p t i o n , i t a p p e a r e d c l e a r 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 was 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 M a n i t o b a C o u r t of A p p e a l l a s t y e a r commented on t h e i n t e r c h a n g e a b i l i t y o f t e r m s : "The p h r a s e 'good a r g u a b l e c a s e ' was used by Megarry 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 Denning M.R. i n Rasu 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 . . . . 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 i n c o n f o r m i t y w i t h t h a t l a i d down i n A m e r i c a n Cyanamid.... I n a l a t e r c a s e , M o t h e r c a r e L t d . v. Robson Books L t d . [1979] F.S.R. 466... Megarry V-C d i s c u s s e d t h e terms ' 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 be t r i e d ' and 'a r e a l p r o s p e c t o f s u c c e e d i n g . ' Megarry V-C s u g g e s t e d t h a t ' f r i v o l o u s and 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 as e q u i v a l e n t s . " 1 8 6 Remarkably a l t h o u g h perhaps u n d e r s t a n d -a b l y , t h e p h r a s e "a good a r g u a b l e case on t h e m e r i t s " i s one w h i c h has appe a r e d most o f t e n i n " p u r e " Mareva c a s e s f o l l o w -i n g t h e T h i r d C h a n d r i s d e c i s i o n i n 1979. Whether t h a t i s a more onerous burden 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 s u n c l e a r b u t i t i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y l e s s onerous t h a n a p r i m a f a c i e c a s e . A l o n e among t h e d e c i s i o n s i n Canada however, a r e two o f t h e most a u t h o r i t a t i v e and t h e y may w e l l f o r t e l l a s h a r p s h i f t i n w e i g h t o f t h e burden on a p l a i n t i f f s e e k i n g t h e i n j u n c t i o n . The M a n i t o b a C o u r t o f A p p e a l l a s t y e a r a l s o s a i d : " 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 t h e A m e r i c a n Cyanamid d e c i s i o n ) t h a t g e n e r a l l y t h e t e s t o f a p r i m a f a c i e c a s e 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 ot 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 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 a l s o v a r i e d t h e A m e r i c a n  Cyanamid and E n g l i s h Mareva t e s t s and w i l l a t l e a s t i n t h a t P r o v i n c e r e q u i r e t h e p l a i n t i f f t o e s t a b l i s h a p r i m a f a c i e c a s e on t h e m e r i t s : " . . . t h e m a t e r i a l . . . m u s t be such...as p e r s u a d e s t h e c o u r t t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f has 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 m e r i t s . " 1 8 8 W h i l e o t h e r t r i a l and a p p e a l c o u r t s i n Canada have n o t gone t h a t f a r , i t i s p o s s i b l e t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e s e two d e c i s i o n s i n s e v e r a l ways. F i r s t , i n b o t h M a n i t o b a and O n t a r i o , t h e h i g h e s t c o u r t s have e a r l i e r gone on r e c o r d as d e c l i n i n g t o f u l l y adopt t h e new A m e r i c a n Cyanamid t e s t s as b e i n g a p p l i c a b l e whereas t h a t i s not t r u e i n e i t h e r B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a o r New B r u n s w i c k o r i n most o t h e r p r o v i n c e s f o r t h a t m a t t e r , and t h u s t h e t e s t s w i l l r e m a i n d i f f e r e n t f o r Mareva s i t u a t i o n s u n t i l t h e Supreme C o u r t o f Canada o t h e r w i s e d e t e r m i n e s . S e c o n d l y , t h e F e i g e l m a n and C h i t e l c a s e s may s i m p l y p r e s a g e what i s y e t t o come. The C a n a d i a n Mareva 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 t o t h i s p o i n t , based on t h e e a r l i e r E n g l i s h e x p e r i e n c e . These two d e c i s i o n s may s i m p l y be a w a r n i n g e x p r e s s i o n o f t h e sometime-heard j u d i c i a l c a u t i o n f o r o v e r u s e o f t h e d o c t r i n e i n i n a p p r o p r i a t e c i r c u m s t a n c e s . I n e i t h e r e v e n t , once b e i n g s a t i s f i e d o f t h a t onus, a c o u r t need t h e n weigh o n l y whether i r r e p a r a b l e 70 harm n o t compensable by damages t o e i t h e r p a r t y would r e s u l t 1 89 b e f o r e a s s e s s i n g t h e b a l a n c e o f c o n v e n i e n c e . B. THE REQUIREMENTS The g u i d e l i n e s ( o r f u r t h e r r e q u i r e m e n t s ) 1 90 b e a r e x a m i n a t i o n . O r i g i n a l l y e x p r e s s e d by L o r d Denning, t h e y have come a f t e r f u r t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n t o be a c c e p t e d as f o l l o w s : (1) The 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 o f a l l m a t t e r s i n h i s knowledge w h i c h a r e m a t e r i a l f o r 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 c l a i m a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t , s t a t i n g t h e ground of h i s c l a i m and t h e amount t h e r e o f , and f a i r l y s t a t i n g 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 P l a i n t i f f s h o u l d g i v e some grounds f o r 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 t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n ; (4) The P l a i n t i f f s h o u l d g i v e some grounds f o r b e l i e v i n g t h a t t h e r e i s a r i s k o f t h e a s s e t s b e i n g removed b e f o r e t h e judgment o r award can be s a t i s -f i e d ; and (5) The P l a i n t i f f must g i v e an u n d e r t a k i n g i n damages, i n c a s e i t f a i l s i n i t s c l a i m o r t h e i n j u n c t i o n t u r n s out t o be u n j u s t i f i e d ; i n a s u i t a b l e c a s e , t h i s s h o u l d be s u p p o r t e d by a bond o r o t h e r s e c u r i t y . I n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , j u d g e s i n b o t h r e p o r t e d and u n r e p o r t e d c a s e s have f o l l o w e d t h e s e p r i n c i p l e s . T r a i n o r J . , i n g r a n t i n g t h e f i r s t Mareva o r d e r i n 1979 i n M anousakis v. M a n o u s a k i s , d i d so on t h e b a s i s o f t h e E n g l i s h a u t h o r i t i e s t o t h a t d a t e a l t h o u g h h i s judgment p r e c e d e d t h e 71 T h i r d C h a n d r i s d e c i s i o n by some t h r e e months. I n t h e t h r e e t r i a l judgments r e p o r t e d i n t h i s P r o v i n c e s i n c e t h a t landmark c a s e , t h e j u d g e s have each d e c l i n e d t o g r a n t t h e i n j u n c t i o n . D a v i e s L.J.S.C. (as he t h e n was) i n 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 L i m i t e d v. 1 91 Hean was a s k e d t o g r a n t an o r d e r r e s t r a i n i n g . t h e d e f e n d a n t s from p a y i n g o r a c c e p t i n g payment o f monies p a y a b l e under an e a r l i e r judgment. He r e v i e w e d s e v e r a l o f t h e h i s t o r i c c a s e s but w i t h o u t t h e b e n e f i t o f any b i n d i n g a u t h o r i t y and u l t i m a t e l y c o n c l u d e d t h a t as t h e a p p l i c a n t f a i l e d i n t h e f o u r t h o f t h e E n g l i s h g u i d e l i n e s t o adduce any e v i d e n c e t o i n d i c a t e t h a t a judgment o f money would be u n e n f o r c e a b l e , i t was n o t a p r o p e r c a s e 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 t would appear a t l e a s t from t h e judgment and t h e b r i e f t r a n s c r i p t t h a t t h e Mareva i s s u e e n t e r e d t h e argument o n l y i n d i r e c t l y . I n t h e n e x t r e p o r t e d B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a 1 92 c a s e , Dean v. F o r d C r e d i t Canada L t d . e t a l , w h i l e t h e Mareva p r i n c i p l e was acknowledged by McEachern C.J.S.C. as b e i n g w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d i n Canada, t h e C h i e f J u s t i c e d e c l i n e d t o a p p l y t h e d o c t r i n e i n t h a t p a r t i c u l a r c a s e commenting s i m p l y : " I do not t h i n k t h a t t h i s i s a s u i t a b l e c a s e t o p e r m i t e x e c u t i o n o r t o f u r n i s h s e c u r i t y b e f o r e judgment."193 72 W h i l e t h a t would appear t o r e p r e s e n t a m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e Mareva d o c t r i n e , t h e e x p e r i e n c e d j u d g e e a r l i e r r e j e c t e d argument as v / e l l on t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f R u l e 46 (1) (a) t o t h e case b e f o r e him and d i d n o t comment on t h e g u i d e l i n e s a t a l l . I t does n o t appear t h a t any b u t t h e v e r y f i r s t o f t h e l o n g l i n e o f Mareva c a s e s were c i t e d t o him and t h u s , i t i s not a judgment w h i c h h e l p f u l l y adds t o t h e j u r i s p r u d e n c e i n t h e a r e a . I n Park.es v. C l a r k e , O x l e y and A r c h i -1 94 b a l d , C l a r k e &^  Def i e u x L t d . , P r o u d f o o t J . e a r l i e r t h i s y e a r r e f u s e d t o g r a n t a Mareva o r d e r i n an a c t i o n f o r s p e c i f i c p e r f o r m a n c e 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 f i l e d b e f o r e h e r . A d o p t i n g t h e T h i r d C h a n d r i s g u i d e l i n e s as c r i t e r i a , t h e j u d g e c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f f a i l e d t o s a t i s f y two o f t h e f i v e e l e m e n t s l i s t e d by t h e M a s t e r o f t h e R o l l s . I n a 1980 u n r e p o r t e d c a s e , Greenwood F o r e s t P r o d u c t s 1 95 (1969) L t d . v. W e s t g u l f E x p o r t Lumber Co. I n c . , t h e same ju d g e embraced t h e g u i d e l i n e s as have f i f t e e n o t h e r j u d g e s o f t h e t r i a l bench i n t h i s p r o v i n c e , i n c l u d i n g M e r e d i t h , M a c f a r l a n e , W a l l a c e , Dohm and M c L a c h l i n J J . and M c C l e l l a n , Huddart> D a r l i n g , A r k e l l , C a t l i f f , Macdonald and van d e r Hoop 1 96 C . C . J . J , i n t h e c a s e s c i t e d below. The f o u r C a n a d i a n a p p e a l c o u r t s w h i c h have c o n s i d e r e d t h e Mareva have a l s o embraced and ad o p t e d t h e g u i d e l i n e s . The New B r u n s w i c k C o u r t a p p l i e d them i n 73 1 97 s u s t a i n i n g an ex p a r t e o r d e r i n Humphreys v. B u r a g l i a . The M a n i t o b a C o u r t o f A p p e a l i n F e i g e l m a n e t a l v. A e t n a 1 98 F i n a n c i a l S e r v i c e s L i m i t e d e t a l u p h e l d g r a n t i n g an i n -j u n c t i o n and t h e O n t a r i o C o u r t o f A p p e a l i n C h i t e l e t a l v. 1 99 R o t h b a r t e t a l r e f u s e d t o a l l o w c o n t i n u a n c e o f t h e i n -j u n c t i o n 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 g u i d e l i n e s . The f o u r t h , t h e B.C. 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 , was not f a c e d w i t h t h e i s s u e a t a l l d i r e c t l y b u t a g r e e d 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 p a r t e i n j u n c t i o n 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 d e b t o r from d i s p o s i n g o f c e r t a i n r e a l p r o p e r t y w i t h i n New B r u n s w i c k . The d e f e n d a n t had i n f a c t been i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a . An o r d e r had a l s o been g r a n t e d a l l o w i n g him t o be s e r v e d s u b s t i t u t i o n -a l l y . When he f a i l e d t o have t h e w r i t , s e r v i c e t h e r e o f and t h e i n j u n c t i o n s e t a s i d e , t h e d e f e n d a n t a p p e a l e d t o t h e New B r u n s w i c k C o u r t o f A p p e a l w i t h o u t s u c c e s s . S p e a k i n g f o r t h e C o u r t , S t r a t t o n J.A. a f t e r 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 an e a r l i e r t r i a l d e c i s i o n i n h i s own p r o v i n c e d e c l a r e d : " . . . 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 about t o sue i n t h i s P r o v i n c e and i t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e r e i s danger t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t may abscond o r remove o r d i s -pose of 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 judgment 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 r e a s o n s e x p r e s s e d 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 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 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 might 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 t h e p l a i n t i f f . I would however r e p e a t t h e a d m o n i t i o n o f L o r d Denning t h a t t h e Mareva i n j u n c t i o n must not be s t r e t c h e d t o o f a r l e s t i t be endangered and I would r e s p e c t f u l l y a d opt 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 t h e 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 M a n i t o b a c o u r t s i m i l a r l y a d o p t e d t h e g u i d e l i n e s i n F e i g e l m a n . I n t h a t i n s t a n c e t h e d e f e n d a n t , a f e d e r a l l y i n c o r p o r a t e d company w i t h head o f f i c e i n Quebec, was sued by M a n i t o b a s h a r e h o l d e r s o f a second company w h i c h had been p l a c e d i n r e c e i v e r s h i p by t h e d e f e n d a n t a c t i n g p u r s u a n t t o i t s powers under a d e b e n t u r e . W h i l e t h e d e f e n d a n t had m a i n t a i n e d an o f f i c e i n t h e p r o v i n c e , i t was i n t h e c o u r s e o f c l o s i n g down and removing i t s a s s e t s t o t h e head o f f i c e , i n Quebec. The p l a i n t i f f a p p l i e d f o r and ob-t a i n e d an i n j u n c t i o n r e s t r a i n i n g r e m o v a l o f t h e a s s e t s from M a n i t o b a . I n s u s t a i n i n g t h e g r a n t i n g o f t h e o r d e r , t h e a p p e a l c o u r t was u n e q u i v o c a l on t h i s p o i n t : " S u b j e c t t o t h e g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e s a p p l i c a b l e t o i n t e r l o c u t o r y i n j u n c t i o n s , I would adopt 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 Denning M. R. i n Mareva, s u b j e c t t o t h e g u i d e l i n e s s e t o u t i n T h i r d C h a n d r i s . . . . " 2 0 2 75 Then t h e O n t a r i o C o u r t o f A p p e a l i n i t s judgment d e l i v e r e d o n l y s i x months ago r e a c t e d somewhat d i f -f e r e n t l y , a l t h o u g h from an o b v i o u s l y more d i f f i c u l t back-g r o u n d . At t h e t r i a l l e v e l , d e c i s i o n s o f t h e O n t a r i o c o u r t s have v a r i e d i n t h e i r a c c e p t a n c e o f t h e Mareva d o c t r i n e and i t s g u i d e l i n e s . As App e n d i x I I i l l u s t r a t e s , O n t a r i o has had by f a r more Mareva c a s e s t h a n any o t h e r l e g a l j u r i s d i c t i o n , save t h e U n i t e d Kingdom. Because o f a h e r i t a g e o f case 203 a u t h o r i t y d e e p l y r o o t e d i n o l d e r common law p r i n c i p l e s , a c c e p t a n c e o f t h e new remedy by t h a t c o u r t was a l a r m i n g l y s l o w . E a r l y c a s e s g r a n t i n g such o r d e r s o f t e n d i d w i t h o u t 204 r e f e r e n c e t o t h e E n g l i s h d e c i s i o n s 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 law r u l e . I t was not u n t i l 1981 t h a t 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 Mareva was made i n t h a t P r o v i n c e i n L i b e r t y N a t i o n a l Bank and T r u s t Co. v. A t k i n e t 206 a l . Montgomery J . i n t h a t c a s e d e p a r t e d from 207 t h e r e f u s a l i n 1978 by L e r n e r J . (as he t h e n was) t o adopt t h e Mareva p r i n c i p l e and t h e i r j u d i c i a l b r e t h r e n o f t h e H i g h C o u r t 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 o r t h e o t h e r u n t i l t h e r e c e n t C h i t e l case 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. I n C h i t e l , t h e p l a i n t i f f sued h er d o c t o r a l l e g i n g t h e c o n v e r s i o n by him o f h e r s h a r e s i n two p r i v a t e companies as he had a d v i s e d h e r i n s e c u r i t i e s m a t t e r s . She o b t a i n e d an ex p a r t e Mareva i n j u n c t i o n e a r l y i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g s r e s t r a i n i n g d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e p h y s i c i a n ' s p r o p e r t y o r o t h e r a s s e t s - a s i t was a l l e g e d he i n t e n d e d t o l e a v e Canada. \ The i n j u n c t i o n was c o n t i n u e d on two f u r t h e r o c c a s i o n s and t h e a p p l i c a t i o n was f i n a l l y h e a r d a f t e r many more a f f i d a v i t s had been f i l e d , c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n on them was c o m p l e t e d and p l e a d i n g s had been exchanged. Because o f c o n f l i c t i n g O n t a r i o a u t h o r i t y , t h e chambers j u d g e r e f e r r e d t h e 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 s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n . S p e a k i n g f o r h i m s e l f , Arnup and Goodman J J . A , MacKinnon A.C.J.O. r e f u s e d t o c o n t i n u e t h e i n j u n c t i o n on t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f had p a t e n t l y f a i l e d t o make f u l l and f r a n k d i s c l o s u r e o f a l l r e l e v a n t f a c t s on t h e i n i t i a l a p p l i c a t i o n . Mrs. C h i t e l , i t was f o u n d , k n o w i n g l y w i t h h e l d p e r t i n e n t i n f o r m a t i o n w h i c h r e s u l t e d i n a c o m p l e t e l y m i s l e a d i n g p i c t u r e o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e p a r t i e s t h e r e b y d i s e n t i t l i n g h e r t o t h e e x e r c i s e o f t h e c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n i n g r a n t i n g any ex p a r t e a p p l i c a t i o n . I n t h e r a t i o o f t h e c a s e , t h e A s s o c i a t e C h i e f J u s t i c e s a i d : " . . t h e 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 and f r a n k d i s c l o s u r e o f t h e 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 de-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 . 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 m a t e r i a l f a c t s i n t h e o r i g i n a l a p p l i c a t i o n , t h e 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 i n f a v o u r o f t h e p l a i n t i f f . . . . " 2 0 8 77 A l t h o u g h n ot n e c e s s a r y s t r i c t l y s p e a k i n g f o r t h e c o n c l u s i o n he r e a c h e d , t h e jud g e i n what i s p r o b a b l y o b i t e r t h e r a f t e r i n f o u r t e e n pages o f h i s w r i t t e n r e a s o n s e l u c i d a t e d t h e c u r r e n t s t a t e o f t h e law i n O n t a r i o r e s p e c t i n g Marevas. E a r l y O n t a r i o c a s e s r e f u s i n g t o a p p l y E n g l i s h Mareva p r i n c i p l e s were d e c l a r e d " i n e r r o r " and were 209 o v e r r u l e d . A f t e r r e f e r r i n g t o E n g l i s h and p r e v i o u s C a n a d i a n a u t h o r i t i e s and i n what i s c l e a r l y s t a t e d t o be an a t t e m p t t o l i m i t " t h e p r o l i f e r a t i o n o f t h e now commonly 210 c a l l e d Mareva i n j u n c t i o n " , t h e C o u r t d e c l a r e d t h a t a p p l i c a n t s , a t l e a s t i n O n t a r i o , 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 mentioned e a r l i e r , i t e m s ( 1 ) , (2) and (5) o f L o r d Denning's g u i d e l i n e s a r e s t a n d a r d c o n s i d e r a t i o n s f o r t h e c o u r t s 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 . However, when an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a Mareva i n j u n c t i o n i s b e f o r e t h e c o u r t , t h e m a t e r i a l under i t e m s (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 t h e p l a i n t i f f has a s t r o n g p r i m a f a c i e c a s e on t h e m e r i t s . . . . ( T ) h e m a t e r i a l under i t e m ( 3 ) , w h i c h d e a l s w i t h t h e a s s e t s o f t h e d e f e n d a n t w i t h i n t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n , s h o u l d e s t a b l i s h t h o s e a s s e t s w i t h as much p r e c i s i o n as p o s s i b l e so t h a t , i f a Mareva i n j u n c t i o n i s w a r r a n t e d , i t i s d i r e c t e d towards s p e c i f i c a s s e t s o r bank a c c o u n t s . . . . T u r n i n g f i n a l l y t o i t e m (4) o f L o r d Denning's g u i d e l i n e s - t h e r i s k o f removal o f t h e s e a s s e t s b e f o r e judgment - .. . t h e a p p l i c a n t must pe 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 t h e d e f e n d a n t i s removing o r t h e r e i s r e a l r i s k t h a t he i s about t o remove h i s a s s e t s from t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o a v o i d t h e p o s s i b i l -i t y o f a judgment, o r t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t i s  o t h e r w i s e d i s s i p a t i n g o r d i s p o s i n g o f 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 from h i s  u s u a l o r o r d i n a r y c o u r s e o f b u s i n e s s o r 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 im- p 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 ] W i t h i n t h e same f i v e g u i d e l i n e s t h e n , t h e O n t a r i o C o u r t o f A p p e a l as we e a r l i e r d i s c o v e r e d has e x t e n d e d t h e o b l i g a t i o n o f t h e a p p l i c a n t t o show i n h i s f i l e d m a t e r i a l a s t r o n g p r i m a f a c i e c a s e and not m e r e l y ' a good a r g u a b l e c a s e on t h e m e r i t s . I t s h o u l d a l s o be n o t e d t h a t as t o t h e f o u r t h g u i d e l i n e , t h e C o u r t has p r o p o s e d an a l t e r n a -t i v e l i m i t a t i o n on a p l a i n t i f f , a l l o w i n g a d e f e n d a n t t o d e a l w i t h o r t o " d i s s i p a t e " h i s a s s e t s i n t h e u s u a l c o u r s e o f b u s i n e s s o r l i v i n g . R e c e nt E n g l i s h and C a n a d i a n c a s e s have t e n d e d 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 c i r c u m -212 s t a n c e s . The O n t a r i o d e c i s i o n has a l r e a d y been a p p l i e d by a D i s t r i c t C o u r t j u d g e i n t h a t P r o v i n c e i n G a s s i e r v. G a s s i e r 21 3 e t a l . I n t h e B r i t i s h C olumbia c a s e , S e k i s u i , a J a p a n e s e c o n s t r u c t i o n company sued i t s c u s t o m e r s , now r e s i d e n t i n Vancouver, f o r d e f a u l t under t h e terms o f t h e c o n t r a c t . An ex p a r t e Mareva o r d e r was o b t a i n e d from Madam J u s t i c e M c L a c h l a n r e s t r a i n i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t s from "removing o r t a k i n g any s t e p s t o remove o r o t h e r w i s e d i s p o s e o f any o f h i s o r t h e i r 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 f t h e C o u r t . " 79 The p l a i n t i f f s u b s e q u e n t l y a p p l i e d f o r summary judgment and f o r e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s under R u l e 42A ( 5 ) ; t h e d e f e n d a n t s a p p l i e d t o s t a y o r d i s m i s s t h e a c t i o n as v e x a t i o u s . 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 t h e p a r t i e s a p p e a l e d . Thus t h e m a t t e r o f t h e e f f i c a c y o f t h e Mareva o r d e r was not a t i s s u e on t h e a p p e a l . The chamber j u d g e was u p h e l d on h i s r u l i n g a g a i n s t summary judgment and d i s m i s s a l b u t t h e h i g h e r c o u r t r e q u i r e d t h e d e f e n d a n t s t o f i l e an a f f i d a v i t i n t h e n a t u r e o f d i s c o v e r y c o n c e r n i n g t h e i r a s s e t s , a h e l p f u l handmaiden t o t h e Mareva w h i c h we s h a l l 21 4 l a t e r examine. I n a v e r y b r i e f b u t c l e a r s t a t e m e n t a f t e r commenting i n one s e n t e n c e o f t h e Mareva h e r i t a g e , s p e c i f i c a l l y t h e T h i r d C h a n d r i s g u i d e l i n e s , t h e C h i e f J u s t i c e of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a added: " I am i n r e s p e c t f u l agreement w i t h t h e s e r e q u i r e m e n t s as p r e - c o n d i t i o n s f o r o b t a i n -i n g an i n j u n c t i o n b e f o r e judgment...."215 Q u o t i n g A c k n e r L . J . i n h i s a d m o n i t i o n i n 21 6 A.J.Bekhor &^  Co. L t d . v. B i l t o n i n 1981 not t o c a r r y a Mareva p l a i n t i f f ' s p r i v i l e g e d p o s i t i o n t o o f a r l e s t t h e 21 7 Mareva d e f e n d a n t be t r e a t e d l i k e a judgment d e b t o r , t h e B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a c o u r t t h e n r e f u s e d t h e p l a i n t i f f f u l l d i s c o v e r y o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s , a l i g n i n g i t s e l f w i t h t h e r e c e n t 21 8 E n g l i s h a u t h o r i t y . 80 The New B r u n s w i c k , M a n i t o b a and O n t a r i o d e c i s i o n s , a t t h a t t i m e s t i l l a l l u n r e p o r t e d , were n o t r e f e r r e d t o by t h e C o u r t and i t i s t h e r e f o r e u n c e r t a i n whether t h e remarks o f Nemetz C.J.B.C. w i l l be v a r i e d when t h e i s s u e i s s q u a r e l y f a c e d . C. CANADIAN POSITION SUMMARISED From t h e r e c e n t a p p e a l d e c i s i o n s , one m i g h t summarize t h e f o l l o w i n g b a s i c c o n c l u s i o n s : (1) 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 t h e s u p e r i o r and c o u n t r y c o u r t s o f t h e p r o v i n c e s and t e r r i t o r i e s i n Canada and i n t h e F e d e r a l C o u r t ; (2) A p l a i n t i f f s e e k i n g Mareva r e l i e f must a b i d e t h e f i v 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 C h a n d r i s , as embraced by t h e C a n a d i a n c o u r t s ; (3) The c o u r t s g r a n t i n g Mareva r e l i e f w i l l a p p l y t h e A m e r i c a n Cyanamid t e s t a p p r o p r i a t e t o a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r i n t e r l o c u t o r y i n j u n c t i o n s ; (4) I t i s no l o n g e r n e c e s s a r y t o p r o v e t h a t t h e r e i s a danger t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s a s s e t s w i l l be removed from t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n ; i t i s s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e r e i s a r i s k o f t h e i r d i s p o s a l b e f o r e judgment i s o b t a i n e d ; 81 ( 5 ) The a p p l i c a n t i n most j u r i s d i c t i o n s r e q u i r e d t o show a good a r g u a b l e case on i t s m e r i t s t h e r e i s a s e r i o u s q u e s t i o n t o be t r i e d ; w i l l be o r t h a t (6) The c o u r t s a t l e a s t i n O n t a r i o and M a n i t o b a have a l t e r e d t h e g e n e r a l r u l e and w i l l r e q u i r e t h e Mareva a p p l i c a n t 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 p r i m a  f a c i e 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 o f p r e - t r i a l a t t a c h m e n t p r o c e d u r e s w i l l n o t p r e c l u d e t h e g r a n t i n g o f a Mareva i n j u n c t i o n ; ( 8 ) 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 t h e c o u r t t h a t he has a s u b s t a n t i v e c ause o f a c t i o n j u s t i c i a b l e w i t h i n 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 . 82 FOOTNOTES CHAPTER VI 179. See Bean, 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 p a r t i c u l a r -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 , s u p r a , a t pp. 61-3 o f t h i s t e x t . 181. As f o r example, see Ma n o u s a k i s , s u p r a , f n 142, B.P.  E x p l o r a t i o n , 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. I n t e r - C i t y T r u c k L i n e s (Can.) .Inc. (1980) 16 B.C.L.R. 43 ( a l s o B.C.C.A.) 182. C h i t e l , s u p r a , f n 151. 183. [1979] 3 A l l E.R. 614. 184. A m e r i c a n Cyanamid, s u p r a , f n 5, a t p. 510 ( A l l E.R.). 185. See 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 L e a f M i l l s L t d . (1978) 22 O.R. (2d) 189, 93 D.L.R. (3d) 106. 186. F e i g e l m a n , s u p r a , f n 17, per S t r a t t o n J.A. a t p. 724 (D.L.R.) 187. I b i d . 188. C h i t e l , s u p r a , f n 151, a t p. 532 (O.R.) 189. Supra> f n 184. The o t h e r f a c t o r s w h i c h may be t a k e n i n t o 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 i t i s s t i l l u n s a t i s f i e d : ( 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 w h i c h 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 ) whether one p a r t y ' s case 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 t h a n 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 c a s e s such as t r a d e d i s p u t e s , n e i g h b o u r c o v e n a n t s , e t c . 190. T h i r d C h a n d r i s , s u p r a , f n 62, a t p. 984 ( A l l E.R.) 191. (1982) 34 B.C.L.R. 158. 192. S u p r a , f n 16. 193. I b i d , a t p. 148. 194. (1983) 42 B.C.L.R. 268. 195. U n r e p o r t e d , SCBC C812750, June 25, 1980, Vancouver R e g i s t r y . 83 196. See t h e c a s e s sampled i n A p p e n d i x I I I . 197. S u p r a , f n 147. 198. S u p r a , f n 149. 199. S u p r a , f n 151. 200. S u p r a , f n 16. 201. Humphries, s u p r a , a t p. 691 (A.P.R.) 202. F e i g e l m a n , s u p r a , a t p. 723. 203. See 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 (1981) 32 O.R. (2d) 9 and d i s c u s s i o n by Stockwood, s u p r a , f n 11, a t p. 86 and 94. 204. ''Robert R e i s e r &^  Co. v. Nadore Food P r o c e s s i n g Equipment 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 u p r a , f n 31, and s i m i l a r c a s e s mentioned t h e r e . 206. (1981) 121 D.L.R. (3d) 160, 31 O.R. (2d) 715. 207. O.S.F. I n d u s t r i e s 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 . [1978] 88 D.L.R. (3d) 446, 20 O.R.(2d) 566, 7 C.P.C. 57. 208. S u p r a , a t p. 519. 209. I b i d , a t p. 532. P a r t i c u l a r l y t h e d e c i s i o n o f L e r n e r J . , s u p r a , f n 207. 210. I b i d , a t p. 515. 211. I b i d , 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 Ont-a r i o 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 a t (1983) 18 A.C.W.S. 351. 214. See C h a p t e r V I I I , i n f r a . 215. S u p r a , f n 16, a t p. 7 Reasons f o r Judgment. 216. [1981] 1 L l o y d s Rep. 491, 2 A l l E.R. 565. v 217. I b i d , a t p. 577 ( A l l E.R.) 218. S e k i s u i , s u p r a , f n 16, a t p. 8 o f Reasons. . If ' \\ \ 84 CHAPTER V I I - VARIATION, EXTENSION & DISSOLUTION I n some measure because Mareva o r d e r s a r e o f t e n g r a n t e d s o l e l y 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 an a p p l i c a n t and when few d e t a i l s a r e known of t h e n a t u r e , e x t e n t o r whereabouts o f t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s a s s e t s , i t i s n o t u n u s u a l f o r f u r t h e r a p p l i c a t i o n s t o be made t o t h e c o u r t t o have t h e o r i g i n a l o r d e r v a r i e d , e x t e n d e d o r e v e n ' v a c a t e d . I n t h i s c h a p t e r , we s h a l l examine some of t h e p u r p o s e s f o r and c i r c u m s t a n c e s under w h i c h such a l t e r a t i o n s a r e n o r m a l l y a l l o w e d . A. VACATING THE ORDER F a r from b e i n g s i m p l y a f u r t h e r ex-c e p t i o n t o t h e t r a d i t i o n a l r u l e i n L i s t e r v. Stubbs as some 219 j u d g e s adamantly c o n t i n u e t o m a i n t a i n , t h e Mareva p r a c t i c e i s w i d e s p r e a d , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t h e U n i t e d Kingdom where j u r i s p r u d e n c e d e v e l o p s a t i t s f a s t e s t r a t e . As L l o y d J . o b s e r v e d s e v e r a l months ago i n PCW ( U n d e r w r i t i n g A g e n c i e s ) 220 L t d . v. D i x o n and A n o t h e r : "From h a v i n g been 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 commonplace.... I n t h e Commecial C o u r t a l o n e a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r Mareva 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 month; i n t h e Queen's Bench l i s t t h e number of 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.... There i s no d i v i s i o n o f t h e 85 H i g h C o u r t i n whi c h 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 a l s o remarked t h a t o n l y a v e r y s m a l l p o r t i o n o f i n j u n c t i o n s g r a n t e d ex p a r t e e v e r come back f o r r e - h e a r i n g b e f o r e t h e c o u r t . That i s l i k e l y as t h e U.K. 222 C o u r t o f A p p e a l e a r l i e r remarked because t h e terms o f t h e o r i g i n a l o r d e r have been a p p r o p r i a t e . Where t h e y a r e n o t , i t i s open t o have t h e m a t t e r r e f e r r e d , u s u a l l y on v e r y s h o r t n o t i c e , t o t h e Chamber l i s t f o r r e - h e a r i n g . I n t h e e v e n t t h e o r d e r was i m p r o p e r l y o b t a i n e d , t h e d e f e n d a n t can a p p l y t o 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 f o r r e - h e a r i n g come a t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s i n i t i a t i v e a l t h o u g h i n t h o s e j u r i s d i c t i o n s 223 where t h e o r d e r i s o f an i n t e r i m n a t u r e o n l y , t h e c i r c u m -s t a n c e s can be r e v i e w e d anew by t h e c o u r t a t t h e t i m e t h e p l a i n t i f f makes a p p l i c a t i o n t o have t h e o r d e r e x t e n d e d f o r a f u r t h e r p e r i o d . I n t h e l a t t e r c a s e , t h e h e a r i n g i s o f t e n b e f o r e a d i f f e r e n t j u d g e and w h i l e t h e second i n i t i a l l y may be r e l u c t a n t 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 by e x e r c i s e of t h e f i r s t j u d g e ' s d i s c r e t i o n , a change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s o r r e v e l a t i o n o f o t h e r f a c t s can have t h a t r e s u l t . I f a d e f e n d a n t can show by a f f i d a v i t 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 a r e i n c o r r e c t o r m i s l e a d i n g 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 t h e p l a i n -t i f f had 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 o r d e r , i t w i l l be 86 224 v a c a t e d . T h i s would appear t o be t r u e whether t h e f a c t s 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 o n l y s u b s e q u e n t l y d e v e l o p e d . The p l a i n t i f f i s r e q u i r e d t o s a t i s f y 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 i n t h e 226 T h i r d C h a n d r i s c a s e , s u b j e c t t o what i s s a i d h e r e a f t e r , and a f a i l u r e t o do so w i l l d i s e n t i t l e him t o t h e s p e c i a l o r d e r . A f a i l u r e t o p r o v e t h a t t h e r e i s r e a l r i s k o f t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s r e m o v a l o r d i s p o s i t i o n o f h i s a s s e t s i s as f a t a l t o t h e a p p l i c a n t as an i n a b i l i t y t o e s t a b l i s h t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a s s e t s i n t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n b e l o n g i n g t o t h e d e f e n d a n t . A d e f e n d a n t may w e l l be a b l e t o p r o v e s u f f i c i e n t f a c t s t o d i s l o d g e t h e onus on an a p p l i c a n t t o show "a good a r g u a b l e c a s e " and, a t l e a s t i n O n t a r i o and M a n i t o b a , t h e burden o f "a s t r o n g p r i m a f a c i e c a s e " make's t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s p o s i t i o n even more v u l n e r a b l e when under a t t a c k . By v i r t u e o f t h e c o u r t ' s wide d i s c r e t i o n i n e q u i t a b l e m a t t e r s g e n e r a l l y , a d e f e n d a n t who bona f i d e i n t e n d s t o r e m a i n w i t h s u f f i c i e n t o f h i s a s s e t s i n t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n and s e r i o u s l y t o c o n t e s t t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m a g a i n s t him may w e l l be a b l e t o t i p t h e b a l a n c e o f con-v e n i e n c e t o e n s u r e m a i n t a i n a n c e o f t h e s t a t u s quo w i t h o u t t h e n e c e s s i t y o f t h e r e s t r i c t i v e o r d e r . The Mareva p r i n c i p l e was 227 not e s t a b l i s h e d f o r such s i t u a t i o n s . L a s t l y , i f a d e f e n d a n t i s a b l e t o show bad f a i t h 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 a d v e r s a r y , 87 such f a c t s a r e e q u a l l y d i s a s t r o u s t o t h e p l a i n t i f f . The r e s u l t f o l l o w s s i m i l a r l y from t h e f i r s t of t h e Mareva g u i d e -228 l i n e s r e q u i r i n g f u l l and f r a n k d i s c l o s u r e . As t h e O n t a r i o c o u r t i n C h i t e l warned: "There 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 t o s t a t e t h e o b v i o u s t h a t t h e 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 Mareva 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 o f t h e 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 . 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 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 t h e o r i g i n a l a p p l i c a t i o n , t h e 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 I n f a v o u r o f t h e p l a i n t i f f . . . . " 2 2 9 I t i s e q u a l l y bad f a i t h t o r e l a t e t r u t h f u l f a c t s but t o w i t h h o l d o t h e r s w i t h t h e r e s u l t t h a t t h e p i c t u r e l e f t w i t h 230 t h e c o u r t i s i n c o m p l e t e o r m i s l e a d i n g . The " u n c l e a n hands" d o c t r i n e w i l l c l e a r l y work t o a d e f e n d a n t ' s advantage i i n such s i t u a t i o n s . B. PROVIDING SECURITY I f a p r i n c i p a l purpose of t h e a p p l i -c a t i o n f o r a Mareva o r d e r however, i s i n f a c t t o r e q u i r e t h e d e f e n d a n t t o p o s t s e c u r i t y f o r t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m , such m o t i v e i s l e g i t i m a t e . W h i l e not s p e c i f i c a l l y r e g a r d e d as a f u n c t i o n o f t h e o r d e r ( f o r i t would even more c l e a r l y d i s t u r b L i s t e r as an a u t h o r i t y w o r t h c i t i n g ) , most j u d g e s o p e n l y 88 acknowledge t h a t a f a s t method o f d i s c h a r g i n g a Mareva i n j u n c t i o n i s f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t t o p r o v i d e some form o f s u i t a b l e s e c u r i t y s a t i s f a c t o r y t o t h e p l a i n t i f f and t o have 231 t h e o r d e r d i s s o l v e d by c o n s e n t . I n P e r t a m i n a , L o r d t Denning went so f a r as t o say: " I n a c a s e 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 be 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 see t h a t he does i t . " 2 3 2 W h i l e o t h e r s have s u g g e s t e d t h a t a d e f e n d a n t ' s i n a b i l i t y t o o b t a i n s e c u r i t y may w e l l p r o v e t h e 233 wisdom o f g r a n t i n g an i n j u n c t i o n i n t h e f i r s t p l a c e , t h e danger i n e x t e n d i n g t h e p r a c t i c e t o o f a r i s o b v i o u s . A t s u c c e s s f u l Mareva p l a i n t i f f i s i n some sense a l r e a d y s e c u r e d by a d e f e n d a n t ' s g e n e r a l a s s e t s b e i n g r e t a i n e d w i t h i n t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n , a l b e i t t h e y a r e a v a i l a b l e t o s a t i s f y t h e c l a i m s o f a l l o f h i s c r e d i t o r s ; t o a l l o w him i n each case f o r m a l s e c u r i t y i n p r i o r i t y t o o t h e r c r e d i t o r s w ould i n d e e d 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 of c u r r e n t s t a t u t e law and beyond t h e scope o f Mareva's i n i t i a l d e s i g n . A r e c e n t e x t e n s i o n o f n o t e i s t h a t i l l u -234 s t r a t e d by CBS U n i t e d Kingdom L t d . v. Lambert and A n o t h e r i n t h e U.K. C o u r t o f A p p e a l 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 o f a s s e t s b e l o n g i n g t o t h e d e f e n d a n t s t o t h e s o l i c i t o r f o r th e p l a i n t i f f p e n d i n g t r i a l o f t h e a c t i o n . W h i l e some 89 235 e a r l i e r C a n a d i a n c a s e s have r e q u i r e d t h e d e f e n d a n t t o pay s p e c i f i c sums o f money ( p r o c e e d s o f s a l e , bank a c c o u n t b a l a n c e s , e t c . ) i n t o c o u r t t o a c t as s e c u r i t y f o r t h e p l a i n t i f f , i t would now appear t o i n c l u d e a l l moveable p r o p e r t y . The U n i t e d Kingdom c o u r t d i d 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 a p p a r e l , b e d d i n g , f u r n i s h i n g s , t o o l s o f h i s t r a d e , farm i m p l e m e n t s , l i v e s t o c k o r any machines ( i n c l u d i n g motor v e h i c l e s ) o r o t h e r goods such as m a t e r i a l s o r s t o c k i n t r a d e , w h i c h i t i s l i k e l y he uses f o r t h e . p u r p o s e s o f a l a w f u l b u s i n e s s . . . . I f t h e e v i d e n c e , i s c l e a r t h a t s u c h . . . were bought f o r t h e p u rpose 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 t h e o r d e r . " 2 3 6 U n l e s s t h e r e i s l i k e l i h o o d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t o r a t h i r d p a r t y would i g n o r e t h e c o u r t o r d e r , i t seems u n n e c e s s a r y however, t o r e q u i r e p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e a s s e t s a c t u a l l y be g i v e n t o t h e p l a i n t i f f . The q u e s t i o n o f s e c u r i t y a v a i l a b l e t o a p l a i n t i f f i s r e l a t e d t o h i s r i g h t t o o b t a i n an A n t o n P i l l e r o r d e r o f w h i c h we s h a l l say more l a t e r i n t h i s c h a p t e r . The f i f t h o f t h e T h i r d C h a n d r i s g u i d e -l i n e s r e q u i r e s t h e s u c c e s s f u l a p p l i c a n t t o p r o v i d e an u n d e r t a k i n g t o pay damages i f t h e c l a i m o r t h e i n j u n c t i o n p r o v e s l a t e r t o have been u n j u s t i f i e d . I t i s b o t h f a i r and 90 r e a l i s t i c t h a t t h e r i s k s h o u l d be borne i n p a r t by a p l a i n t i f f and i t i s i n t h i s way t h a t some p r o t e c t i o n i s a f f o r d e d t h e p e r s o n a g a i n s t whom t h e o r d e r i s o b t a i n e d . W h i l e R u l e 45 (6) p e r m i t s a B r i t i s h C olumbia c o u r t d i s c r e t i o n t o w a i v e such an u n d e r t a k i n g , i t i s i n f r e q u e n t l y e x e r c i s e d and an u n d e r t a k i n g o r a c t u a l s e c u r i t y i s n o r m a l l y 237 r e q u i r e d . I t s h o u l d be n o t e d however, t h a t i t has been w a i v e d i n some Mareva c a s e s where h a r d s h i p m i g h t o t h e r -238 w i s e r e s u l t . I t i s not unknown i n t h i s P r o v i n c e f o r t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s t o be w a i v e d on o t h e r i n t e r l o c u t o r y a p p l i -239 c a t i o n s and some j u d g e s w i l l r e f u s e t o r e q u i r e a d d i t i o n a l s e c u r i t y so l o n g as t h e s t a n d a r d w r i t t e n u n d e r t a k i n g i s 240 g i v e n . By v i r t u e o f i n s t i g a t i n g p r o c e e d i n g s , t h e p l a i n t i f f w i l l i n any e v e n t have s u b m i t t e d t o 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 n o t o n l y c o n c e r n i n g h i s own c l a i m b u t 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 . The p r o t e c t i o n bestowed on a d e f e n d a n t by such an u n d e r t a k i n g has been e x t e n d e d t o t h i r d p a r t i e s who might a l s o be a f f e c t e d by a Mareva o r d e r . As t h e e f f e c t o f some o r d e r s i s r a t h e r sweeping when one c o n s i d e r s s e r v i c e on a l l banks, b r o k e r a g e s and o t h e r d e p o s i t o r i e s o f a d e f e n d a n t , some t h i r d p a r t i e s q u i t e u n c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e l i t i g a t i o n were b e i n g r e q u i r e d under p e n a l t y o f contempt o r c o m m i t t a l t o spend c o n s i d e r a b l e t i m e and e f f o r t t o comply. 91 I t i s now u s u a l f o r t h e c o u r t t o p r o v i d e t h a t a s u c c e s s f u l p l a i n t i f f u n d e r t a k e t o p r o t e c t and i n d e m n i f y t h i r d p a r t i e s a g a i n s t l i a b i l i t y and t o r e i m b u r s e them f o r r e a s o n a b l e expenses i n c u r r e d when r e q u i r e d t o comply 241 w i t h a Mareva o r d e r . T h i s c o u l d i n c l u d e a bank's c o s t s t o 242 l o c a t e a d e f e n d a n t ' s a c c o u n t s o r a p o r t a u t h o r i t y ' s l o s s o f 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 t o re m a i n a t a 243 c o m m e r c i a l b e r t h . W h i l e t h e C a n a d i a n c o u r t s have n ot y e t had i s s u e s b e f o r e them r e q u i r i n g much d i s c u s s i o n c o n c e r n i n g p r o t e c t i o n o f r i g h t s o f t h i r d p a r t i e s , as t h e i n c i d e n c e o f o r d e r s b e g i n s i n i n c r e a s e , i t i s l i k e l y r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r t h i r d p a r t y s e c u r i t y w i l l be a t l e a s t as s t r i n g e n t as t h e y a r e i n t h e U n i t e d Kingdom. C. VARYING TERMS OF THE ORDER Any p e r s o n a f f e c t e d by an i n t e r l o c u t o r y i n j u n c t i o n may on p r o p e r n o t i c e a p p l y t o t h e o r i g i n a t i n g c o u r t t o have t h e terms o f t h e o r d e r r e v i e w e d o r v a r i e d . T h i s a p p l i e s e q u a l l y t o t h i r d p a r t i e s who have been s e r v e d w i t h t h e o r d e r and 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 244 o r m a t t e r . The Mareva o r d e r i s f r e q u e n t l y s e t i n b r o a d 245 terms by v i r t u e o f i t s v e r y n a t u r e 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 n o t as s u b j e c t s o f t h e i n j u n c t i o n b u t because \ o f t h e law o f contempt o f c o u r t i f t h e y a c t c o n t r a r y t d terms 246 of t h e o r d e r . As has been r e c e n t l y p o i n t e d o u t : 92 "As soon as 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 terms o f t h e i n j u n c t i o n , b e f o r e t h e d e f e n d a n t him-s e l f can be s e r v e d and even b e f o r e t h e o r d e r i s drawn up. Thus, e v e r y p e r s o n who has knowledge of i t must do what he r e a s o n a b l y can t o p r e s e r v e t h e a s s e t . He must not 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 contempt."247 248 The U.K. C o u r t o f A p p e a l i n Z L t d . v. A-Z and AA-LL has g i v e n some l i m i t e d but f o r t h r i g h t g u i d a n c e t o t h i r d p a r t i e s who a r e s e r v e d w i t h n o t i c e o f a Mareva i n j u n c t i o n ; i t i s o f p a r t i c u l a r i m p o r t a n c e t o banks and o t h e r d e p o s i t o r i e s t o f o l l o w t h e d i r e c t i o n s s u g g e s t e d i n t h i s c a s e , a t l e a s t u n t i l 249 C a n a d i a n c o u r t s s h o u l d d e t e r m i n e o t h e r g u i d e l i n e s . I f c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e o r d e r p r o v e s e i t h e r i m p r a c t i c a l o r i m p o s s i b l e , a t h i r d p a r t y s h o u l d ob-v i o u s l y a p p l y t o have i t s terms v a r i e d so t h a t i t might f a i r l y be made w o r k a b l e . So l o n g as t h e t h i r d . p a r t y i s n o t a 250 c o l l a b o r a t o r 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 i s c o n t r a r y t o t h a t o f t h e p l a i n t i f f , t h e c o u r t n o r m a l l y w i l l a t t e m p t t o s a t i s f y t h e o b j e c t i o n s r a i s e d by a t h i r d p a r t y on an a p p l i c a t i o n t o v a r y . I t i s when i n t e r e s t s o f t h e t h i r d p a r t y and t h e p l a i n t i f f 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 be e x e r c i s e d by t h e j u d g e i n a l t e r i n g t h e terms a t a l l . As Rose has p o i n t e d o u t : "A s e r i o u s p o t e n t i a l drawback of p e r m i t t i n g a v a r i a t i o n ... o f t h e 93 i n j u n c t i o n a t t h e i n s t i g a t i o n o f a t h i r d p a r t y i n t e r v e n o r o r o f t h e 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 a l l o w a t h i r d p a r t y t o d e a l w i t h some o f t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s a s s e t s f r o z e n by v i r t u e o f a Mareva o r d e r c o u l d w e l l d e f e a t a 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 o f t h e p r o c e d u r e , e i t h e r by a l l o w i n g i t s d i s p o s i t i o n t o o r by a t h i r d p a r t y o r by r e -d u c i n g i n t o t a l t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s 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 w h i c h might o t h e r w i s 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 and o t h e r c r e d i t o r s a f t e r judgment. Two r e c e n t c a s e s i l l u s t r a t e t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s a l t h o u g h t h e r e have been s e v e r a l i n t h e l a s t 252 y e a r . E a r l i e r t h i s y e a r i n O c e a n i a C a s t e l a n a Armadora 258 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), L l o y d J . i n t h e U.K. Commercial C o u r t was f a c e d w i t h a r e q u e s t by B a r c l a y s Bank t o v a r y t h e terms o f a Mareva o r d e r o b t a i n e d ex p a r t e by a shipowner a g a i n s t h i s d e f a u l t i n g c h a r t e r e r . The d e f e n d a n t , a Rumanian c o r p o r a t i o n , had a c o n t r a c t 'with t h e N a t i o n a l C o a l Board w h i c h i n v o l v e d t h e c a r r i a g e o f coke from E n g l a n d t o Rumania. The d e f e n d a n t ' s c a r g o e s o f c o k e , 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 r e l e a s e d when f u n d s were d e p o s i t e d w i t h B a r c l a y ' s Bank i n London t o a c t as s u b s t i t u t e s e c u r i t y . The Bank w h i c h was s e r v e d w i t h t h e o r i g i n a l o r d e r and a subsequent Mareva a t t a c h i n g t h e funds on a c c o u n t , sought l e a v e t o v a r y t h e 94 i n j u n c t i o n 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 d e f e n d a n t . Mr. J u s t i c e L l o y d v a r i e d t h e terms o f t h e o r d e r by a d d i n g t h e c l a u s e , " P r o v i d e d n o t h i n g i n t h i s i n j u n c t i o n 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 any 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 -ed by ( t h e bank) t o t h e d e f e n d a n t s p r i o r t o t h e d a t e o f t h i s i n j u n c t i o n . " 2 5 4 By t h i s means, he ( i ) a l l o w e d t h e bank t o r e l e a s e any of t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s f u n d s on d e p o s i t i n e x c e s s o f t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m , 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 t h e bank t o s e t -o f f a g a i n s t t h e r e m a i n i n g f u n d s any c l a i m s i t had a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t , i n c l u d i n g f u t u r e i n t e r e s t on such c l a i m s . I n d o i n g s o , t h e c o u r t f o l l o w e d d i c t a i n s e v e r a l r e c e n t 255 d e c i s i o n s i n t h e U.K. The second c a s e , w h i c h f o l l o w e d t h e f i r s t by s e v e r a l d a y s , f u r t h e r i l l u s t r a t e s t h e c o u r t ' s dilemma on an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r v a r i a t i o n b u t a l s o c l e a r l y p o i n t s a d i r e c t i o n away from t h e c o m f o r t i n i t i a l l y f e l t by p l a i n t i f f s who r e c e i v e d unopposed Mareva i n j u n c t i o n s . I n PCW 256 ( 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 and A n o t h e r , t h e d e f e n d a n t h i m s e l f a p p l i e d t o v a r y t h e i n j u n c t i o n w h i c h had been sought e a r l i e r and g r a n t e d , a t t a c h i n g a l l o f h i s 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 , save f o r "a r e a s o n a b l e l i v i n g ex-95 pense o f 100 pounds p e r week." The d e f e n d a n t , d e s c r i b e d as 257 "a member of L l o y d ' s and a w e a l t h y man," w i s h e d t o i n -c r e a s e h i s l i v i n g a l l o w a n c e t o 1,000 pounds w e e k l y , t o pay c e r t a i n o f h i s o t h e r d e b t s and t o pay h i s s o l i c i t o r s 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 -t i f f . The o r i g i n a l o r d e r was v e r y b r o a d i n d e e d and had t h e e f f e c t o f " f r e e z i n g " a l l o f t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s con-s i d e r a b l e a s s e t s i n h i s own c o u n t r y . A f t e r w e i g h i n g c a r e f u l l y t h e r i s k o f t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s r e m o v a l o f h i s a s s e t s , t h e s e c u r i t y r e m a i n i n g f o r t h e p l a i n t i f f and t h e b a s i s of t h e d e f e n d a n t ' 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 r e q u e s t e d . F o r t h e f i r s t and t h i r d r e a s o n s , t h e r e s u l t i s not s u r p r i s i n g and so l o n g as i t does n ot a l a r m i n g l y d i s s i p a t e t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s r e m a i n i n g a s s e t s , such o r d e r s a r e r e g u l a r l y 258 made:. "The ... j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r t h e Mareva 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 c h e a t e d o ut o f t h e p r o c e e d s o f t h e i r a c t i o n , s h o u l d i t be s u c c e s s f u l ... not t o s e c u r e 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 m i s d e eds. I am not 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 what 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 drawn; but wherever t h e l i n e i s t o be drawn t h i s i s w e l l w i t h i n 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 as he has a l w a y s l i v e d . . . . 96 I say n o t h i n g about t h e c o s t o f de-f e n d i n g h i m s e l f i n t h e s e p r o c e e d i n g s . The Mareva j u r i s d i c t i o n was ne v e r i n t e n d e d t o p r e v e n t e x p e n d i t u r e s such as t h i s "259 G i v e n t h e n a t u r e o f t h e i n j u n c t i o n , i t i s n o t s u r p r i s i n g t h a t c o u r t s on o c c a s i o n have been p r e p a r e d t o v a r y t h e terms o f t h e i r o r d e r s t o p e r m i t d e f e n d a n t s t o d e a l w i t h t h e i r a s s e t s i n t h e o r d i n a r y c o u r s e o f t h e i r 260 b u s i n e s s . One s i m i l a r l y cannot a r g u e a g a i n s t t h e p r o p -o s i t i o n t h a t a Mareva d e f e n d a n t s h o u l d be a l l o w e d t o l i v e a c c o r d i n g t o h i s u s u a l s t a n d a r d o r s t y l e w h i l e t h e l i t i g a t i o n i s i n p r o g r e s s and s h o u l d be e n a b l e d t o r e t a i n and pay h i s s o l i c i t o r s t o d e f e n d t h e a c t i o n i n i t i a t e d by t h e p l a i n t i f f i f t h e r e i s a r e a s o n a b l e d e f e n c e a v a i l a b l e . W i t h t h e e x i s t e n c e ( c e r t a i n l y i n B r i t i s h C olumbia and i n many o t h e r common law j u r i s d i c t i o n s ) o f f r a u d u l e n t p r e f e r e n c e s l e g i s l a t i o n , s h o u l d c o u r t s i n t h e s e j u r i s d i c t i o n s e v e r v a r y a Mareva i n j u n c t i o n t o a l l o w a d e f e n d a n t t o pay t h e d e b t owed t o a c r e d i t o r o t h e r t h a n t h e one who has o b t a i n e d t h e i n j u n c t i o n ? I t i s c l e a r t h a t some d e b t s s h o u l d 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 but t h e c o u r t s when p e r m i t t i n g v a r i a t i o n s t o o r i g i n a l Mareva o r d e r s ought t o t r e a d v e r y c a r e f u l l y i n s a n c t i o n i n g p r e f e r e n c e s among c r e d i t o r s l e s t c l e a r i n j u s t i c e s h o u l d r e s u l t . 97 FOOTNOTES CHAPTER V I I 219. F o r example, see v i e w s o f MacKinnon A.C.J.O. i n C h i t e l , s u p r a , f n 151, a t p. 531.(O.R.) 220. [1983] 2 A l l E.R. 158. 221. I b i d , a t p. 160. 222. See Denning M.R., i n T h i r d ' C h a n d r i s , s u p r a , f n 62. 223. As i n t h e Fe'deral C o u r t , see C h a p t e r V I , s u p r a , and 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 c o u r s e open t o t h e c o u r t even i n B r i t i s h C olumbia t o g r a n t a Mareva o r d e r u n t i l a f i x e d t i m e i n o r d e r t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t may be s e r v e d and be h e a r d on t h e m e r i t s o f t h e i n j u n c t i o n . 224. As i n C h i t e l , s u p r a , f n 151. 225. I t i s n o t g e n e r a l l y c o n s t r u e d 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 i s 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 w h i c h 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 a p p l i c a t i o n were e a r l i e r unknown o r w i t h h e l d . 226. See comments, s u p r a , a t pp. 90-1, c o n c e r n i n g t h e 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 th e same p o s i t i o n as a judgment d e b t o r . See comments o f Nemetz C.J.B.C. i n S e k i s u i , s u p r a , f n 16. 228. As s e t o u t a t p. 71, s u p r a . 229. C h i t e l , s u p r a , f n 151, a t p. 519.(O.R.) 230. I b i d , a t p. 520. 231. P e r t a m i n a , s u p r a , f n 66. 232. I b i d , a t p. 662. 233. Rose, F.B. "The Mareva I n j u n c t i o n - Attachment i n P e r -sonam" (1981) L l o y d s Mar. & Comm. L. Q u a r t e r l y 177, a t p. 183. 234. [1982] 3 W.L.R. 746, 3 A l l E.R. 237. 235. See f o r example, Quinn v. M a r s t a C e s s i o n S e r v i c e s L t d . e t a l (1981) 34 O.R. (2d) 659. 98 236. S u p r a , f n 234, a t p. 752 (W.L.R.) The a s s e t s o r d e r e d i n t h i s c a s e 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 J a g u a r , a L o t u s 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 o r d e r s . . . " 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 e t a l v. Gary Audas e t a l ( U n r e p o r t e d SCBC C830812, March 14, 1983, Vancouver R e g i s t r y ) f o r u s u a l d i s p o s i -t i o n . I n t h i s c a s e as t h e p l a i n t i f f was a f o r e i g n c o r p o r a t i o n , i t was o b l i g e d t o p o s t s e c u r i t y i n a d d i t i o n . t o p r o v i d i n g t h e u s u a l w r i t t e n form o f u n d e r t a k i n g . 238. A l l a n and O t h e r s v. Jambo H o l d i n g s L t d . and Ot h e r s [1980] 1 W.L.R. 1252, 2 A l l E.R. 502. 239. See 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 . [1979] 4 W.W.R. 49, a d e c i s i o n o f Locke J . ; Save-on-Meats v. J i m P a t t i s o n L t d . ( U n r e p o r t e d , SCBC C823387, 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 (U n r e p o r -t e d , SCBC C827576, F e b r u a r y 7, 1983, Vancouver R e g i s -t r y ) , a d e c i s i o n o f P r o u d f o o t , J . 240. See Parmar 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 e  E s p e r a n c a L.DA. e t a l (1982) 141 D.L.R. (3d) 498, 53 N.S.R. (2d) 338, 109 A.P.R. 338, a d e c i s i o n o f Nunn J . of t h e T r i a l D i v i s i o n o f t h e Nova S c o t i a Supreme C o u r t . 241. Z L t d . v. A-2 and AA-LL, i n f r a , f n 248. The C o u r t o f Ap p e a l i n t h i s c a s e e x t e n s i v e l y r e v i e w e d developments r e l a t e d t o Mareva i n t h e s i x y e a r s s i n c e 1975 and h e l p f u l l y p r o v i d e d g u i d e l i n e s f o r t h i r d p a r t i e s i n d e a l i n g w i t h Mareva order's s e r v e d on 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 . [1981] 1 W.L.R. 894, 1 L l o y d s Rep. 556, 1 A l l E.R. 806. 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 (The MARIE LEONHARDT) [1981] 1 W.L.R. 1262, 2 L l o y d s Rep. 458, 3 A l l E.R. 664. See 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 (The ELETHERIOS  and t h e GRECIAN LEGEND) and Oceanblue Compania N a v i e r a  S.A. as I n t e r v e n o r s [1982] 1 W.L.R. 539, 1 L l o y d s Rep. 351, 1 A l l E.R. 796. 244. See 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. Hunt [1981] 1 W.W.R. 209, [1980] 114 D.L.R. (3d) 35, a t p. 213 (W.W.R.), I r a q u i M i n i s t r y o f Def e n c e , s u p r a , f n 73. 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 la n g u a g e w i l l p r o v i d e t h a t " t h e d e f e n d a n t s by th e m s e l v e s , t h e i r s e r v a n t s o r ag e n t s o r o t h e r w i s e howsoever be r e s t r a i n e d . . . . " 99 246. 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 t h e y would f o r o t h e r b r e a c h e s o f a c o u r t o r d e r . See M c A l l i s t e r , s u p r a , f n 11, p. 88. 247. A r l i d g e , A. and Eady, D. The Law o f Contempt. London: Sweet & M a x w e l l , 1982. At p. 2-51. 248. [1982] 2 W.L.R. 288, 1 L l o y d s Rep. 240, 1 A l l E.R. 556, Q.B. 558. 249. The 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 t o t h e 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 Denning M.R. o r K e r r L . J . The f o r m e r , r e l y i n g h e a v i l y on 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 rongdoing on t h e p a r t o f a t h i r d p a r t y , would r e q u i r e t h e co n d u c t t o be " c o n t u m a t i o u s " b e f o r e f i n d i n g i t c o n t e m p t i b l e . The m a j o r i t y d i d n ot e x p r e s s t h e same v i e w . 250. The term was used by G o f f J . i n I r a q u i M i n i s t r y o f  Defence v. Ar c e p a y S h i p p i n g Co. S.A. ( G i l l e s p i e  B r o t h e r s and Co. 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. 632, 1 A l l E.R. 480, 2 W.L.R. 488, Q.B. 65 a t p. 488 (W.L.R.) See a l s o P e r t a m i n a , 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. 191. 252. I b i d . 253. [1983] 2 A l l E.R. 65. 254. I b i d , a t p. 71 . 255. S p e c i f i c a l l y , P r o j e c t Development Co. L t d . S.A. v . K.M.K. S e c u r i t i e s L t d . and O t h e r s [1 982] 1 W.L.R. .1470 [1983] 1 A l l E.R. 465, I r a q u i M i n i s t r y o f Defence (The  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. (The GRECIAN  LEGEND), s u p r a , and C l i p p e r M a r i t i m e Co. L t d . o f Mon- r o v i a (The MARIE LEONHARDT), s u p r a . 256. S u p r a , f n 220. 257. I b i d , a t p. 160. 258. See c a s e s c i t e d a t f n 255, s u p r a . 259. S u p r a , f n 256, a t p. 162 260. I r a q u i M i n i s t r y of Defence (The ANGEL BELL) s u p r a , seems t o have been one o f t h e e a r l i e s t c a s e s t o have p e r m i t t e d a v a r i a t i o n f o r t h i s p u r p o s e . I t i s now q u i t e u s u a l . 100 CHAPTER V I I I - COROLLARY RELIEF A. DISCOVERY A Mareva i n j u n c t i o n would be u s e l e s s t o a p l a i n t i f f who was s u i n g a defendant.who i n t e n d e d t o d e a l w i t h h i s a s s e t s i n o r d e r t o d e p r i v e h i s opponent o f an ex-e c u t a b l e judgment u n l e s s as w e l l t h e r e was a method o f r e q u i r i n g 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 t h e y were l o c a t e d . I n h i s i n i t i a l a p p l i c a t i o n and i n a c c o r d w i t h t h e g u i d e l i n e s , t h e p l a i n t i f f need o n l y a f f i r m t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h o s e a s s e t s o f w h i c h he has knowledge. O f t e n t h e r e a r e o t h e r s . I n y e t a n o t h e r e x t e n s i o n o f t h e g r a c e s 261 o f e q u i t y , t h e E n g l i s h c o u r t i n 1980 i n A v. C d e t e r m i n e d t h a t a Mareva p l a i n t i f f s h o u l d be e n t i t l e d i n a p r o p e r c a s e t o d i s c o v e r y i n a i d o f h i s Mareva o r d e r ; i t would be p r o p e r i f i t was n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e e f f e c t i v e o p e r a t i o n o f t h e i n j u n c t i o n : "... t h e C o u r t s h o u l d , where 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 o r i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s i n o r d e r t o en s u r e 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 e x e r c i s e d . . . . " 2 6 2 The power t o make such c o r o l l a r y o r d e r s was f e l t 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 r u l e s but t h e C o u r t of A p p e a l t h e f o l l o w i n g y e a r i n A . J . Bekhor and Co. 1 01 263 L t d . v. B i l t o n d e s c r i b e d i t as an i n h e r e n t power t o make " a n c i l l i a r y o r d e r s as appear t o t h e C o u r t t o be j u s t and c o n v e n i e n t t o e n s u r e t h a t t h e e x e r c i s e o f t h e Mareva j u r i s -264 d i c t i o n i s e f f e c t i v e t o a c h i e v e i t s p u r p o s e . " W h i l e t h a t has meant i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s and the. d i s c l o s u r e o f documents i n E n g l a n d , i t e q u a l l y w i l l a p p l y t o e x a m i n a t i o n v i v a voce v/here o t h e r w i s e p e r m i t t e d , as i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , by t h e R u l e s o f C o u r t . Whether sought under t h e a u s p i c e s o f R u l e 42A ( 5 ) : "Where d i f f i c u l t y a r i s e s i n o r about 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 such o r d e r f o r t h e r a t t e n d a n c e o f a p a r t y o r  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] o r 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 , o r t h e i n h e r e n t j u r -i s d i c t i o n , d i s c o v e r y o f documents o r p e r s o n s w i l l be p e r m i t -t e d by t h e c o u r t . The S e k i s u i House o r d e r i n t h e B r i t i s h 266 C o l u m b i a C o u r t o f A p p e a l r e f e r r e d t o e a r l i e r i s an example but 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. i n t h a t c a s e 267 w i l l r e m a i n a p p l i c a b l e : "The p l a i n t i f f has an i n j u n c t i o n g r a n t -ed by M c L a c h l i n J . T h i s has l i t t l e v a l u e i f one does not know e i t h e r t h e amount o r whereabouts of 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 i m p o s s i b l e t o e n f o r c e . I t i s a l s o an u n t e n a b l e s i t u a t i o n t o have 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 t h e p o s i t i o n o f 102 b r e a k i n g t h e o r d e r because o f l a c k o f 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 o f t h e fu n d as p a r t o f t h e o r d e r . What, t h e n , can be done i n t h e s e p a r t i c u l a r c i r c u m -s t a n c e s ? 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 would 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 d a t e o f t h e i n j u n c t i o n be s e t out i n a f f i d a v i t form by t h e d e f e n d a n t s and d e l i v e r e d t o c o u n s e l f o r th e p l a i n t i f f f o r t h w i t h . I n t h e e v e n t t h a t t h e a f f i d a v i t i s u n s a t i s f a c t o r y , 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 j u d g e 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 . I n t h e ev 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, t h e n t h e a p p e l l a n t w i l l have l i b e r t y t o r e - a p p l y t o t h i s d i v i s i o n o f th e C o u r t . " 2 6 8 As can be seen, t h e c o u r t r e f u s e d f u l l d i s c o v e r y a t su c h an e a r l y s t a g e , a l i g n i n g i t s e l f c l o s e l y w i t h t h e r e c e n t E n g l i s h a u t h o r i t i e s , b u t p e r m i t t e d an o r d e r s u f f i c i e n t l y b r o a d t o a s s i s t t h e p l a i n t i f f i n l o c a t i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s a s s e t s . B. ANTON PILLER ORDERS S h o r t l y a f t e r t h e f i r s t Mareva c a s e s , t h e U.K. C o u r t o f A p p e a l , a g a i n l e d by L o r d Denning, f a s h i o n e d a n o t h e r p o t e n t remedy known as an Anton P i l l e r o r d e r : an o r d e r , u s u a l l y a l s o g r a n t e d ex p a r t e , e n j o i n i n g a d e f e n d a n t t o p e r m i t a p l a i n t i f f t o e n t e r t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s p r e m i s e s t h a t he might i n s p e c t , remove o r make c o p i e s o f documents o r o t h e r e v i d e n c e f o r pu r p o s e s o f p e n d i n g i 1 03 l i t i g a t i o n . D e s c r i b e d as "something of a h y b r i d between 269 d i s c o v e r y and i n j u n c t i o n , " i t i s d e s i g n e d f o r i n s t a n c e s where t h e r e i s a s e r i o u s r i s k t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t may d e s t r o y v i t a l m a t e r i a l so as t o d e f e a t t h e ends of j u s t i c e b e f o r e any a p p l i c a t i o n , w i t h n o t i c e t o t h e d e f e n d a n t , c o u l d be b r o u g h t b e f o r e t h e c o u r t . F o l l o w i n g an e a r l i e r d e c i s i o n i n 1975, 270 EMI R e c o r d s L t d . v. P a n d i t , t h e C o u r t i n Anton P i l l e r K.G. 271 v. M a n u f a c t u r i n g P r o c e s s e s L t d . and O t h e r s s e t o u t t h e f o l l o w i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s : ( i ) t h e a p p l i c a n t must have a v e r y s t r o n g p r i m a f a c i e c a s e , ( i i ) t h e p o t e n t i a l 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 v e r y s e r i o u s , ( i i i ) t h e r e must be c l e a r e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t has i n h i s p o s s e s s i o n i n c r i m i n a t i n g documents o r t h i n g s , and t h a t t h e r e i s a r e a l p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t he may d i s p o s e o f o r d e s t r o y such m a t e r i a l s b e f o r e any a p p l i c a t i o n i n t e r 272 p a r e s can be made. The same C o u r t s e v e r a l y e a r s l a t e r i n 273 Y u s i f v. Salama a d o p t e d a somewhat l e s s o nerous t e s t f o r t h e p l a i n t i f f on such a p p l i c a t i o n s , r e d u c i n g ( i ) t o s i m p l y a p r i m a f a c i e c a s e . W h i l e Lawton L . J . was even l a t e r t o r e f e r 274 t o t h e p r a c t i c e as " p i l i n g P i l l e r on Mareva," t h e r e i s no doubt t h a t i t p r o v i d e s an a d d i t i o n a l a i d t o t h e Mareva 275 a p p l i c a n t . 1 04 The a d vent o f Anton P i l l e r i s a t l e a s t as g r e a t 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 l e g a l r i g h t s as Mareva. Mr. J u s t i c e B r o w n e - W i l k i n s o n o f t h e U.K. H i g h C o u r t r e c e n t l y spoke o f t h e extreme n a t u r e o f t h e f o r m e r : " I would emphasize t h a t t h e e f f e c t o f an 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 has had no oppor-t u n i t y t o p r e s e n t h i s ca s e t o t h e c o u r t o r t o b r i n g m a t t e r s t o t h e c o u r t ' s a t t e n t i o n w h i c h might a l t e r t h e c o u r t ' s v i e w o f t h e m a t t e r . 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 even g i v i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t an o p p o r t u n i t y t o be h e a r d . S e c o n d l y , t h e e x e c u t i o n o f 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 th e r i g h t s o f p r i v a c y : t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n i s e x e r c i s e d i t i s i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h t h e v i e w t h a t an 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 f not v e r y c a r e f u l l y watched, i t i s c a p a b l e o f b e i n g abused. A p l a i n t i f f engaged i n t r a d e who o b t a i n s an (Anton P i l l e r ) o r d e r e n a b l i n g him t o e n t e r t h e b u s i n e s s p r e m i s e s o f a c o m p e t i t o r and s e a r c h t h a t c o m p e t i t -o r ' s documents may o b t a i n a q u i t e un-f a i r and w r o n g f u l c o m m e r c i a l advan-t a g e . ..."276 The development now seems e n t r e n c h e d and i s g r a n t e d when r e q u i r e d by C a n a d i a n c o u r t s i n any a p p r o p r i a t e p r o c e e d i n g s , n o t s i m p l y t h o s e r e l a t e d t o i n -277 f r i n g e m e n t o f r i g h t s p e r t a i n i n g t o i n t e l l e c t u a l p r o p e r t y . S u b s t a n t i a l q u e s t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g t h e p r i v i l e g e a g a i n s t s e l f -i n c r i m i n a t i o n i n such i n s t a n c e s , w h i l e answered s t a t u t o r i l y 278 i n p a r t i n t h e U n i t e d Kingdom, have y e t t o be d e a l t w i t h s e r i o u s l y by t h e c o u r t s i n t h i s c o u n t r y f o l l o w i n g t h e welcome 1 0 5 a r r i v a l o f t h e Cana d i a n C h a r t e r o f Human R i g h t s and Freedoms 279 l a s t y e a r . C. DEFAULT JUDGMENT Mareva r e l i e f i s by i t s v e r y n a t u r e a temp o r a r y remedy w h i c h , i n k e e p i n g w i t h a l l i n t e r l o c u t o r y o r d e r s , e x p i r e s upon f i n a l d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e c a s e by t h e c o u r t . I n t h e o r d i n a r y c a s e , a p l a i n t i f f p r o c e e d s t o s e t t h e m a t t e r f o r h e a r i n g and a t t r i a l , a f i n a l o r d e r i s made d e a l -i n g w i t h a l l i s s u e s between t h e p a r t i e s . The i n t e r l o c u t o r y o r d e r s would n o r m a l l y f a l l and t h e s u c c e s s f u l p l a i n t i f f i s e n t i t l e d t o p r o c e e d by way o f e x e c u t i o n a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d -a n t ' s a s s e t s r e t a i n e d w i t h i n t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n by v i r t u e o f t h e Mareva o r d e r . I f t h e d e f e n d a n t f a i l s t o appear t o t h e i n i t i a l w r i t of summons, i n t h e o r d i n a r y c a s e t h e p l a i n t i f f w o uld 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 t o t h e R u l e s o f c o u r t i n t h e a p p r o p r i a t e forum. I n most j u r i s -280 d i c t i o n s however, as i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , t h e p r o c e d u r e i s not a v a i l a b l e where t h e w r i t i s e n d o r s e d w i t h a c l a i m f o r an i n j u n c t i o n and i n o r d e r t o s u c c e s s f u l l y a p p l y f o r d e f a u l t judgment, a p l a i n t i f f would have t o abandon h i s i n j u n c t i o n . I n so d o i n g he would r u n a r i s k t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t might d i s -pose o f h i s a s s e t s t h e moment t h e i n j u n c t i o n was removed. 106 I n S t e w a r t C h a r t e r i n g L t d . v. C &^  O 281 Managements S. A., t h i s " c a t c h - 2 2 " s i t u a t i o n was a l l e v -i a t e d when G o f f , J . (as he t h e n was) d e t e r m i n e d t h a t as c o u r t s must have c o n t r o l o v e r t h e i r own p r o c e s s e s , he would o r d e r judgment by d e f a u l t w i t h o u t r e q u i r i n g t h a t t h e Mareva i n j u n c t i o n f i r s t be ceded: "The purpose o f a Mareva 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 from r e -moving h i s a s s e t s from t h e 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 t h e f r u i t s o f h i s judgment; from t h i s i t f o l l o w s t h a t t h e p o l i c y u n d e r l y i n g t h e Mareva j u r i s d i c t i o n can 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 t h e Mareva i n j u n c t i o n a f t e r judgment, i n a i d o f e x e c u t i o n . " 2 8 2 T h i s would appear t o be t h e o n l y r e p o r t -ed c a s e 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 t o o b t a i n d e f a u l t judgment w i t h o u t r e l i n q u i s h i n g h i s Mareva o r d e r b u t a l s o ex-t e n d i n g t h e e f f e c t o f t h e o r d e r t o p e r m i t s u c c e s s f u l ex-e c u t i o n a f t e r judgment. I t i s a r g u a b l e however, t h a t such i n s t a n c e s may w e l l p r e s e n t a f u r t h e r example of c o u r t -283 a s s i s t e d p r e f e r e n c e s t o c r e d i t o r s . I n e x t e n d i n g c o r o l l a r y r e l i e f t o a p p l i c a n t s f o r Mareva i n j u n c t i o n s , t h e c o u r t s have so f a r a t t e m p t e d t o r e m a i n f a i t h f u l t o o r i g i n a l Mareva p r i n c i p l e s by p e r m i t t i n g o n l y t h o s e e x t e n t i o n s w h i c h w i l l l e g i t i m a t e l y e n a b l e t h e d o c t r i n e t o r e m a i n e f f e c t i v e . D e t e r m i n i n g t h e l o c a t i o n and v a l u e o f a s s e t s and p r e v e n t i n g a d e f e n d a n t from 107 s u b v e r t i n g t h e p r i n c i p l e a l t o g e t h e r a r e l o g i c a l e l a b o r a t i o n s as i s p e r m i t t i n g a d e s e r v i n g p l a i n t i f f t o e n t e r d e f a u l t judgment w i t h o u t r e q u i r i n g abandonment o f t h e Mareva i t s e l f . I t i s o f i n t e r e s t t o n o t e t h a t t h e new New B r u n s w i c k p r a c t i c e r u l e s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e i n j u n c t i o n m ight c o n t i n u e i n f o r c e beyond judgment i n o r d e r t h a t e x e c u t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s 284 might be t a k e n . As p a r t i e s and t h e i r c o u n s e l make more f r e q u e n t use o f t h e s e s u p p l e m e n t a r y r i g h t s , one can e n v i s a g e s i t u a t i o n s where e q u a l o r s i m i l a r l e g a l r i g h t s w i l l be p l a c e d i n a n o t h e r c o m p e t i n g s e t t i n g . A s i d e from i s s u e s o f p r e f e r e n c e among i n t e r e s t e d c r e d i t o r s i n t h e same a c t i o n , c o u r t s may soon be f a c e d w i t h two Mareva p l a i n t i f f s who have s e c u r e d o r d e r s a g a i n s t t h e same d e f e n d a n t and h i s a s s e t s , o r a Mareva. p l a i n t i f f and a t h i r d p a r t y who has a l s o s e c u r e d a Mareva 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 , o r i n an A d m i r a l t y c o n t e x t , a Mareva p l a i n t i f f and a second c l a i m a n t who ca u s e s t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s a s s e t s t o be a r r e s t e d . G u i d e d by t h e even 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 be f o u n d . 1 08 FOOTNOTES CHAPTER V I I I 261. A v. C [1980] 2 A l l E.R. 347, 2 L l o y d s Rep. 200. The j u r i s d i c t i o n t o make such o r d e r s was a p p a r e n t l y f i r s t r e c o g n i s e d i n London &^  County S e c u r i t i e s v. C a p l a n where an o r d e r f o r d i s c o v e r y was made n ot a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t but a g a i n s t a bank i n wh i c h i t was b e l i e v e d th e d e f e n d a n t ' s a s s e t s were h e l d . That c a s e 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. Mabanaft G.m.b.H. a r e b o t h u n r e p o r t e d b u t r e f e r r e d t o by t h e C A . i n t h e subse-quent c a s e o f Bank e r s T r u s t Co. v. S h a p i r a [1980] 1 W.L.R. 1273, 3 A l l E.R. 353., a t p. 1280 (W.L.R.). 262. I b i d , a t p. 351 ( A l l E.R.) 263. [1981] 2 W.L.R. 601, 1 L l o y d s Rep. 491, 2 A l l E.R. 565, 1 Q.B. 923. 264. I b i d , p e r Ack 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 C olumbia Supreme C o u r t R u l e s . 266. S u p r a , f n 16. 267. See p. 80 o f t h i s t e x t , s u p r a . 268. I b i d , a t pp. 6-7. 269. S n e l l ' s P r i n c i p l e s o f E q u i t y , s u p r a , f n 3, a t p. 649. 270. [1975] 1 W.L.R. 302. 271. [1976] Ch. 55. * 272. I b i d , a t p. 62. 273. Y o u s i f v. Salama [1980] 1 W.L.R. 1540, 3 A l l E.R. 405. 274. I n 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 t p. 749 (W.L.R.) 275. I b i d . See a l s o Johnson v. L Ik A P h i l a t e l i e s L t d . [1981] F.S.R. 286, where one o f t h e f i r s t such o r d e r s i n c l u d i n g b o t h Mareva and Anton P i l l e r p r o v i s i o n s was made by G o f f J . i n t h e Q.B. D i v i s i o n . The form o f t h e o r d e r i s a c t u a l l y s e t o ut i n t h e R e p o r t . 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 G l a s s L i m i t e d [1981] F.S.R. 289, a t p. 291-2. 109 277. There a r e many examples b u t see l e n g t h y d i s c u s s i o n o f th e 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 ( A p p e a l D i v i s i o n ) i n N i n t e n d o o f A m e r i c a , I n c . v. Co i n e x V i d e o Games I n c . e t a l (1983) ( U n r e p o r t e d , December 30, 1982, A-1273-82, O t t a w a ) . See 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, and 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. See 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 ) [1980] 3 W.L.R. 387 and [1981] 2 W.L.R. 668. 279. The r i g h t t o be p r o t e c t e d by t h e g i v i n g o f i n c r i m i n a t i n g e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t o n e s e l f has c o n s t i t u t i o n a l b ases and i s a f f o r d e d by t h e Canada E v i d e n c e A c t . The e f f e c t o f t h e C a n a d i a n C h a r t e r p r o v i s i o n s have y e t t o be f u l l y t e s t e d . See C h a p t e r I X , 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 Can a d i a n C h a r t e r i n t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e Mareva i n j u n c t i o n . 280. B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a Supreme C o u r t R u l e s , R u l e 17. 281. [1980] 1 W.L.R. 460, 2 L l o y d s Rep. 116, 1 A l l E.R. 718. 282. I b i d , a t p. 117 ( L l o y d s R e p . ) . 283. See d i s c u s s i o n , s u p r a , a t pp. 96-7. 284. See Appe n d i x IV. 11 0 CHAPTER IX - THE CANADIAN CONTEXT The remedy would appear t o be e s t a b -l i s h e d i n Canada; t h e g u i d e l i n e s f o r i t s a v a i l a b i l i t y have been a p p r o v e d 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 p r o v i n c e s and chamber j u d g e s have been g r a n t i n g o r d e r s f o r f o u r y e a r s . W h i l e i n some p a r t s o f t h i s c o u n t r y g r e a t e r c a u t i o n i s s t i l l b e i n g e x e r c i s e d t h a n i s t h e c a s e i n o t h e r s , o u r 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 nor e x p e r i e n c e o f th e E n g l i s h c o u r t t o y e t d e v e l o p a d i s t i n c t l y C a n a d i a n j u r i s p r u d e n c e . A. THE FEDERAL STATE Some q u e s t i o n s s t i l l r e m a i n t o be ex-amined w i t h a de e p e r a n a l y s i s t h a n has been a p p a r e n t i n t h e c a s e s r e p o r t e d t o d a t e . The b i r t h p l a c e o f t h e Mareva was a s o v e r e i g n s t a t e w i t h u n i t a r y p o l i t i c a l and j u d i c i a l s t r u c t u r e s . The d o c t r i n e a r o s e i n a l e g a l system where t h e r e was a d e a r t h o f s t a t u t o r y o r common law reme d i e s a v a i l a b l e t o c r e d i t o r s i n s i t u a t i o n s where d e b t o r s sought t o a v o i d t h e i r l i a b i l i t i e s . Those r e a c h e s o f t h e B r i t i s h Common-i w e a l t h w h i c h have embraced t h e Mareva p r i n c i p l e , Canada and A u s t r a l i a p a r t i c u l a r l y , have c u r r e n t p o l i t i c a l and l e g a l frameworks c o n s i d e r a b l y d i f f e r e n t t h a n t h e i r m o t h e r l a n d and have d e v e l o p e d , as we have seen, o t h e r ways o f s o l v i n g i d e b t o r - c r e d i t o r p r o b l e m s . W i t h c o n s t i t u t i o n a l d i s t r i b u t i o n 111 o f b o t h l e g i s l a t i v e and j u r i d i c a l powers d i v i d e d between t h e p r o v i n c i a l and f e d e r a l j u r i s d i c t i o n s , i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t w i t h i n t h e C a n a d i a n c o n t e x t d i f f e r e n t c o n s i d e r a t i o n s ought t o 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 Kingdom. Fo r example, w h i l e t h e C a n a d i a n c o u r t s have p e r m i t t e d Marevas 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 w i s h t o move t h e i r a s s e t s from one p r o v i n c e t o a n o t h e r , i s such a d r a s t i c remedy n e c e s s a r y i n a f e d e r a t e d n a t i o n where judgments i n one p r o v i n c e a r e u s u a l l y r e c i p r o c a l l y e n f o r c e -a b l e i n a n o t h e r ? I n two o f t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l d e c i s i o n s we have examined (and many more a t t h e t r i a l l e v e l ) , 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 t h e p r o v i n c e o r t h e r e m o v a l o f h i s a s s e t s has s i m p l y been t o a n o t h e r C a n a d i a n j u r i s d i c t i o n . 285 I n Humphreys v. B u r a g l i a , t h e d e f e n d a n t s p e n t some c o n s i d e r a b l e t i m e i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a and c o u l d n o t be 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 B r u n s w i c k . 286 I n t h e M a n i t o b a c a s e , F e i g e l m a n v. A e t n a , t h e d e f e n d a n t as an economic measure w i s h e d t o c l o s e i t s o f f i c e i n W i n n i p e g , as i t had done e a r l i e r i n O n t a r i o , and t o r e - g r o u p i t s bus-i n e s s i n t h e P r o v i n c e o f Quebec where, s h o u l d t h e p l a i n t i f f s have i n i t i a t e d t h e i r a c t i o n and succeeded i n t h e i r c l a i m , any judgment a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t might be e x e c u t e d upon and p a i d . I n n e i t h e r o f t h e s e two c a s e s does any d e t a i l e d c o n s i d e r a t i o n appear t o have been g i v e n t o what might be 11 2 d e s c r i b e d as a p r a c t i c a l c o n t e x t u a l d i f f e r e n c e between t h e C a n a d i a n and E n g l i s h s i t u a t i o n s . ' That i s n o t t o say t h a t a Mareva 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 where a d e f e n d a n t can be r e a d i l y l o c a t e d i n a n o t h e r C a n a d i a n p r o v i n c e f o r even absence from t h e g e o g r a p h i c j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t t o w h i c h t h e a p p l i c a t i o n i s made i s n o t a n e c e s s a r y r e q u i r e m e n t f o r e n t i t l e m e n t . The f a c t s h o u l d weigh however, and weigh h e a v i l y , i n m e a s u r i n g t h e r i s k t o t h e p l a i n t i f f i n p e r m i t t i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t t o c o n t i n u e t o d e a l w i t h h i s a s s e t s w i t h i n Canada. The B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a a p p e a l d e c i s i o n i n 287 S e k i s u i was s e t more i n t h e mould o f e a r l y E n g l i s h c a s e s where t h e d e f e n d a n t 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 c o u n t r y as opposed t o a n o t h e r p o l i t i c a l d i v i s i o n w i t h i n t h e same n a t i o n . 288 L o r d Denning i n P e r t a m i n a e a r l i e r s u g g e s t e d t h a t a c o u r t might n o t e n j o i n t h e t r a n s f e r o f a d e f e n d a n t ' s a s s e t s t o a n o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n i n w h i c h judgment e i t h e r c o u l d be r e g i s t e r e d o r e n f o r c e d when he s a i d : "...(The goods) a r e g o i n g t o be removed t o Hamburg where t h e y w i l l be j u s t as much l i a b l e t o s e i z u r e as i n E n g l a n d , and p r o b a b l y more s o , as t h e p r o c e s s i s more u n d e r s t o o d and a c c e p t a b l e t h e r e . " 2 8 9 O n l y 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 t h i s c o u n t r y s e i z e d upon what c o u l d be a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r i n d e c l i n i n g t o s i m p l y copy t h e E n g l i s h p r a c t i c e . M e r e d i t h J . o f t h e B r i t i s h C olumbia Supreme C o u r t i n Deane v. Lds 290 C o r p o r a t i o n ( 1 970) L t d . s e t a s i d e an ex p a r t e o r d e r e n j o i n i n g a d e f e n d a n t from removing i t s a s s e t s from B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a t o M a n i t o b a , r e c o g n i z i n g / t h e r i g h t o f t h e company t o c l o s e i t s B.C. o p e r a t i o n s f o r v a l i d economic r e a s o n s i n commenting t h a t "The purpose o f a Mareva 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 from ' s t u l t i f y i n g any judgment....' b e f o r e such i s g i v e n . The movement o f a s s e t s from p l a c e t o p l a c e , c a r r i e d o u t i n t h e normal c o u r s e o f t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s b u s i n e s s , does n o t p r o v i d e t h e f a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n f o r t h e g r a n t i n g o f such r e l i e f . " 2 9 1 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 purpose o f t h e move was not t o d e f e a t t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m and n o t e d t h a t any j u d g -ment o b t a i n e d i n t h i s P r o v i n c e would be r e c i p r o c a l l y e n f o r c e a b l e i n M a n i t o b a . T h i s i s one o f v e r y few i n s t a n c e s seen where t h i s 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 i t may a l s o r e s u l t from t h e f a c t t h a t t h e m o t i o n was f u l l y a r g u e d by c o u n s e l r e p r e s e n t i n g b o t h p a r t i e s , an e x c e p t i o n t o t h e u s u a l p r a c t i c e , such r e l e v a n t c o n s i d e r a t i o n s ought not t o be l e f t s o l e l y f o r such o c c a s i o n s . C l e a r l y , i n b o t h t h e New B r u n s -w i c k and M a n i t o b a c a s e s , o r d e r s were v i g o r o u s l y r e s i s t e d . 11 4 B. THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS S i n c e t h e a r r i v a l o f Mareva t o t h e C a n a d i a n s c e n e , 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 Freedoms 292 has a l s o made i t s de b u t . 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 -p rudence i s r a p i d l y b e i n g t e s t e d i n t h e c r i m i n a l law f i e l d and c h a l l e n g e s i n a r e a s o f c i v i l p r a c t i c e and p r o c e d u r e w i l l u n d o u b t e d l y come more s l o w l y . By v i r t u e o f i t s i n t e n d e d wide a p p l i c a t i o n however, c o n t e s t s based upon i n f r i n g e m e n t s o f e n t r e n c h e d r i g h t s a r e bound t o f o l l o w i n most f i e l d s o f r e g u l a t e d c o n d u c t . M o b i l i t y r i g h t s , e s t a b l i s h e d by s e c t i o n 6 o f t h e C h a r t e r , c o u l d w e l l p r o v i d e an a r e n a f o r c h a l l e n g e t o t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f a Mareva o r d e r i n c e r t a i n s i t u a t i o n s o f i n t e r p r o v i n c i a l movement. S e c t i o n 6 p r o v i d e s : (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 has t h e s t a t u s o f a permanent r e s i d e n t  o f Canada has t h e r i g h t (a) t o move t o and 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 i n s u b s e c t i o n (2) a r e s u b j e c t t o : (a) any laws o r p r a c t i c e s o f g e n e r a l a p p l i c a t i o n i n f o r c e i n a p r o v i n c e o t h e r t h a n t h o s e w h i c h 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 on t h e b a s i s o f p r o v i n c e o f p r e s e n t o r p r e v i o u s 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 reasonable r e s i d e n c y requirements as a q u a l i f -i c a t i o n f o r the 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 o s t e n s i b l y d e r i v e d from Canadian r e c e p t i o n i n 1976 of the 1966 United Nations I n t e r n a t i o n a l 293 Covenant on C i v i l and P o l i t i c a l R i g h t s , i t i s probable t h a t concern about economic b a l k a n i z a t i o n of Canada p r i n -c i p a l l y prompted i n c l u s i o n i n ' the Charter of p r o v i s i o n s 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 . In common w i t h s e c t i o n s 3 and 23 of the. C h a r t e r , the f i r s t s u b - s e c t i o n extends r i g h t s only to c i t i z e n s of Canada. But w i t h respect to s u b - s e c t i o n ( 2 ) , i t i s l i k e l y t h a t the c o u r t s w i l l continue to i n t e r p r e t the opening phrases as e x c l u d i n g l e g a l persons such as corpora-294 t i o n s , c o n f e r r i n g p h y s i c a l m o b i l i t y r i g h t s on n a t u r a l persons only and l i m i t i n g them to those w i t h formal s t a t u s as c i t i z e n s or permanent r e s i d e n t s . I t i s arguable t h a t a Mareva order could operate to p r o h i b i t a defendant, i n t e n d i n g to r e l o c a t e i n another p a r t of the country, from e f f e c t i v e l y doing so i f he must leave h i s house, bank accounts and other a s s e t s behind. While a c t u a l p h y s i c a l movement, t a k i n g up employment, s t a r t i n g or expanding a business, e t c . would be u n a f f e c t e d by 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 ould have th a t r e s u l t . 11 6 A n o t h e r p r o v i s i o n , s e c t i o n 7 o f t h e C h a r t e r , b e a r s b r i e f e x a m i n a t i o n as w e l l . W h i l e t h e new C h a r t e r does n o t i n c l u d e t h e language o f t h e p r e v i o u s D i e f e n -295 b a k e r B i l l o f R i g h t s c o n c e r n i n g t h e " r i g h t t o t h e e n j o y -296 ment of p r o p e r t y and n o t t o be d e p r i v e d t h e r e o f , " t h e s t a t u t o r y s a f e g u a r d i n t h e 1982 C h a r t e r chosen by C a n a d i a n l e g i s l a t o r s may s u c c e s s f u l l y a v o i d problems e n c o u n t e r e d i n 297 t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s i n h e r e n t i n t h e p h r a s e "due p r o c e s s . " I t may be a r g u e d t h a t p r o t e c t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l p r o p e r t y r i g h t s i s one o f t h e f u n d a m e n t a l freedoms a f f o r d e d t o e v e r y p e r s o n i n Canada but i t i s u n l i k e l y an argument e x i s t s t h a t t h e Mareva 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 enjoyment so l o n g as t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o t e c t i o n "not t o be d e p r i v e d t h e r e o f e x c e p t i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e p r i n c i p l e s o f f u n d a m e n t a l j u s t i c e " r e m a i n s . i C e r t a i n l y , once committees r e s p o n s i b l e 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 s t a t e m e n t s o f p r a c t i c e such as New B r u n s w i c k has done and i t i s a p p r e c i a t e d t h a t Mareva i s 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 , arguments such as i s s u g g e s t e d w i l l c a r r y even l e s s w e i g h t . C. MULTIPLE REMEDIES Canada, u n p a i d m i d a b l e c o u r s e 11 7 W i t h a p p r o v a l o f t h e Mareva p r i n c i p l e i n c r e d i t o r s had opened t o them a n o t h e r f o r -o f a c t i o n t o e n s u r e r e c o v e r y from t h e i r r e c a l c i t r a n t d e b t o r s . I t s need i n t h e U n i t e d Kingdom and i n Canada was undoubted as i n s t a n c e s r e g u l a r l y a r o s e v/here r e l i e f was u n a v a i l a b l e i n any o t h e r form. I t i s h a r d t o i m a g i n e , w i t h e x t e n t i o n s o f t h e p r i n c i p l e now f i r m l y i n p l a c e , how t h e r u l e i n L i s t e r v. Stubbs can be s a i d t o r e m a i n 298 o f 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 l a t e r . We have seen t h a t t h e E n g l i s h and Can-a d i a n c o u r t s have been ad idem i n t h e i r r e f u s a l t o deny t h e Mareva r e s t r a i n t even when o t h e r r emedies may have been a v a i l a b l e 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 s e v e r a l c a s e s . 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 , t h e b e t t e r v i e w e x p r e s s e d s i n c e has been t h a t i n any t y p i c a l s u i t , s e v e r a l forms o f remedy may be p o t e n t i a l l y a v a i l a b l e and e a ch s h o u l d n o r m a l l y be g r a n t e d on i t s own p a r t i c u l a r m e r i t s w i t h o u t r e g a r d t o t h e c o n v e n i e n c e o f o t h e r s . I n i t i a l 301 impetus f o r t h e v i e w came from Brandon J . i n THE RENA K where i t was u n s u c c e s s f u l l y a rgued t h a t as t h e remedy o f a r r e s t i n g s h i p s i n A d m i r a l t y a c t i o n s i n rem was a v a i l a b l e , t h e Mareva i n j u n c t i o n s h o u l d n o t . There i s now no doubt as 302 t o 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 but t h e c a s e by i t s u n i q u e n e s s h e l p s t o i l l u s t r a t e a n o t h e r 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 . I n c o n t r a s t t o h i s E n g l i s h c o u n t e r p a r t , t h e C a n a d i a n c r e d i t o r p r i o r t o Mareva i n many c a s e s had o t h e r a l t e r n a t i v e c o u r s e s open t o him. F o r t h e major p a r t , t h o s e 118 c o u r s e s a r e s t i l l open t o him b u t o u r c o u r t s , i t a p p e a r s , p r e f e r r e d t o a c c e p t t h e E n g l i s h v i e w w i t h o u t f u l l y c o n s i d e r i n g whether i n t h e more f r e q u e n t c i r c u m s t a n c e when a l t e r n a t e r e m e d i e s a r e a v a i l a b l e , t h e C a n a d i a n c o u r t might v i e w more s t r i c t l y t h e n e c e s s i t y f o r a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e Mareva d o c t r i n e . O b v i o u s l y , when use of 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 even by s e v e r e r e s t r i c t i o n s on usage, Mareva d i s c r e t i o n s h o u l d be e x e r c i s e d i f i t i s j u s t and c o n v e n i e n t . What must be guarded a g a i n s t however, w i t h i n t h e C a n a d i a n c o n t e x t , i s i t s u t i l i s a t i o n f o r t h e purpose o f e n f o r c i n g a n o t h e r remedy w h i c h t u r n s out t o be u n a v a i l a b l e . That w o u l d , i t i s s u b m i t t e d , be an i m p r o p e r e x t e n t i o n o f t h e p r i n c i p l e and as one w r i t e r has p u t i t w i t h a n o t h e r d e s i g n : "... i t would 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 p r o c e d u r e i n t o s e r v i c e m e r e l y f o r t h e sake o f e x p a n d i n g i t . " 3 0 3 D. UNIFORMITY Two f i n a l comments can be made c o n c e r n -i n g t h e a p p l i c a t i o n i n Canada o f t h e Mareva d o c t r i n e . F i r s t l y , t h e c o u r t s have been s l o w e r i n t h i s c o u n t r y t h a n t h e y have been i n E n g l a n d t o adopt n o t o n l y t h e g u i d e l i n e s b u t t h e p r i n c i p l e i t s e l f . T h i s u n d o u b t e d l y i s due i n p a r t t o t h e t r a d i t i o n a l l y c o n s e r v a t i v e t e n d e n c y o f t h e C a n a d i a n j u d i c i a r y t o a v o i d i n d i g e s t i o n when s a m p l i n g any f o r e i g n 11 9 c o n c o c t i o n ; i t s u n c e r t a i n e x t e n t i o n s and i t s unknown f i n a l d i m e n s i o n s would p r o v i d e a second e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h e c a u t i o n b e i n g e x e r c i s e d . Now t h a t e x p l o r a t o r y e x p r e s s i o n s f o u n d i n t r i a l judgments a r e r e c e i v i n g t h e s a n c t i o n o f h i g h e r c o u r t s , p r o b i n g o f l i m i t s o f t h e e x t e n t i o n s o f t h e d o c t r i n e w i l l c e r t a i n l y c o n t i n u e . Whether, h a v i n g r e g a r d t o t h e Ca n a d i a n s i t u a t i o n , t h a t e x t e n t i o n s h o u l d i n c l u d e a d e f e n d a n t who may n o t show any s i g n s o f d i s p o s i n g o f h i s a s s e t s but s i m p l y c o n v e r t s e v e r y t h i n g he has i n t o t h e form o f r e a d y c a s h may p r o v e t h e n e x t t e s t i n Mareva e v o l u t i o n . S e c o n d l y , i t may be i m p o r t a n t h a v i n g r e g a r d 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 i n t h i s c h a p t e r and f o r t h e sake o f some c e r t a i n t y f o r n a t i o n a l b u s i n e s s o r g a n i z a t i o n s t h a t t h e r e be a measure o f u n i f o r m i t y i n d e f i n i t i o n o f t h e o u t e r d i m e n s i o n s o f t h e p r i n c i p l e t o be a p p l i e d i n each o f t h e p r o v i n c e s and t e r r i t o r i e s . The f i r s t judgments o f t h e f o u r a p p e a l c o u r t s we have examined a r e n o t h e l p f u l t o t h i s end. 1 20 FOOTNOTES CHAPTER IX 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 (A.E.R.). 290. U n r e p o r t e d , SCBC C831082, March 17, 1983, Vancouver R e g i s t r y . 291. I b i d , a t p. 2 (Reasons f o r Judgment). 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 ( s s . 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 , 1982, c. 11 (U.K.). Approved by t h e C a n a d i a n House o f Commons on December 2, 1981 and t h e Senate on December 8, 1981, i t r e c e i v e d r o y a l a s s e n t and came i n t o f o r c e as o f A p r i l 17, 1982. 293. U.N. GAOR Supp. 16, U.N. Doc. A/6316, i n f o r c e i n Canada August 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 o f a s t a t e s h a l l , w i t h i n t h a t 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 and freedom t o choose h i s r e s i d e n c e . " 294. See an example 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. 673. 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 (1982) 4 Supreme C o u r t L. R. 89 a t p. 90-1 . 295. Of 1960; R.S.C. 1970, A p p e n d i x I I I . 296. S e c t i o n 7 r e a d s 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 t h e r e o f e x c e p t i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e p r i n c i p l e s o f f u n d a m e n t a l j u s t i c e . " 297. See d i s c u s s i o n s u p r a , C h a p t e r 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 American p r e -t r i a l a t t a c h m e n t p r o c e d u r e s a l l e g i n g b r e a c h o f t h e 14th Amendment s a f e g u a r d o f "due p r o c e s s . " \ 1 21 298. L i s t e r , c i t e d s u p r a , 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 t h e case when e a r l y Mareva 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. 58. 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 (1981) 35 N.B.R. (2d) 265, 88 A.P.R. 265 (N.B.Q.B.) 301. [1979] 1 A l l E.R. 397, Q.B. 377 (Q.B.) 302. Not o n l y was t h e r e i n i t . i a l d o u b t , t h e r e was some c o n f u s i o n when L o r d Denning from t i m e t o t i m e would r e f e r t o t h e Mareva as " a c t i n g i n rem l i k e t h e a r r e s t o f a s h i p d o e s . " 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 a c t s i n personam o n l y and 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 do. 303. Rose, s u p r a , f n 233, a t p. 182. 1 22 C H A P T E R X - P O S T S C R I P T U M O n e m u s t c o n c e d e t h e r e i s w i s d o m i n s t a n d i n g b a c k a n d l o o k i n g a s e c o n d t i m e a t t h e e f f e c t s w r o u g h t b y a n y n e w i n v e n t i o n , d i s c o v e r y o r i n n o v a t i o n . I n s o m e c a s e s , i t i s p o s s i b l e t o m a k e r e v i s i o n s i n a s e c o n d e d i t i o n o r t o i n c o r p o r a t e n e c e s s a r y c h a n g e s o r a d j u s t m e n t s i n a n e w e r m o d e l . S o m e t i m e s i t i s m a n d a t o r y t o t u r n i t a l l u p a n d s t a r t a n e w . P r a c t i c a l e x p e r i e n c e i s o n e o f t h e b e s t g u i d e s i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e n a t u r e o f t h e c o u r s e o n e s h o u l d a d o p t f o r t h e f u t u r e . T h e i n v e n t i o n a n d p r a c t i c a l e v o l u t i o n o f t h e M a r e v a d o c t r i n e i s n o e x c e p t i o n t o t h e s e g e n e r a l p r e s c r i p t s . J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r i t s c r e a t i o n i s a s g r e a t i n 1 9 8 3 a s i t w a s p r i o r t o 1 9 7 5 a n d i t h a s p r o v e n a n e s s e n t i a l a n d e f f e c t i v e m e a s u r e i n d e b t o r - c r e d i t o r l a w . I t s a n t e c e n d e n t s a r e u n d o u b t e d l y f r a i l a n d m a y s o o n b e g o n e t h e m -s e l v e s a l t o g e t h e r . R e l i a n c e u p o n t h e m a s s o u r c e s m a y e v e n b e d e s c r i b e d a s s h a b b y . A p p r o v a l h a s n e v e r t h e l e s s b e e n g i v e n t o a m u c h n e e d e d i m p l e m e n t . A d j u s t m e n t s a r e r e q u i r e d t o b e m a d e i n e x t e n t i o n s w h i c h h a v e b e e n f a s h i o n e d t o t h e u n d e r l y i n g d o c t r i n e . T h e y a r e n o w t a k i n g s h a p e a n d w i l l h a v e t h e e f f e c t u l t i m a t e l y o f r e n o v a t i n g a n d s t r e n g t h e n i n g t h e p r i n c i p l e s i n v o l v e d . T h i s w i l l b e t u n i n g r a t h e r t h a n r e f o r m i n g a s t h e 1 2 3 l a t t e r i s n o t r e q u i r e d . As i t i s a p p l i e d i n t h e C a n a d i a n c o n t e x t , 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 t o e n s u r e a l l t h a t i s i m p o r t e d i s a c t u a l l y n e c e s s a r y i n o u r s i t u a t i o n . Some, i t has been s u g g e s t e d i n t h i s p a p e r , i s n o t . The f o r m u l a t i o n o f p r a c t i c e r u l e s o r t h e amendment o f e x i s t i n g s t a t u t e s can 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 minor a d j u s t -ments needed. As an e q u i t a b l e i n t e r v e n t i o n , i t s use can n o t be r i g i d l y d e f i n e d o r c o n t r o l l e d and as w i t h e a r l i e r c o n t r i v a n c e s formed f o r a n c i e n t c o u r t s o f e q u i t y by r e s o u r c e -f u l C h a n c e l l o r s , t h e need f o r i t s c o n t i n u e d p r e s e n c e and i t s 304 l o n g e v i t y c a n n o t be a c c u r a t e l y f o r e c a s t . One w r i t e r has l i k e n e d t h e emergence o f what i s an a d m i t t e d j u d i c i a l i n v e n t i o n t o t h e r i s e o v e r 125 y e a r s ago o f t h e R u l e i n T u l k v-. Moxey c o n c e r n i n g t h e b i n d i n g e f f e c t o f r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t s on s u c c e s s o r s i n t i t l e . Whether o r not a f a i r a n a l o g y , i n n e i t h e r c a s e was t h e f i n a l r e s u l t p r e d i c t a b l e by i t s j u d i c i a l a u t h o r . A n o t h e r has s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e i n s t r u m e n t i n t h i s c a s e was i n v e n t e d p r i m a r i l y because o f t h e E n g l i s h C o u r t o f A p p e a l r e f u s e d t o a c c e p t t h e House o f L o r d ' s 305 t e s t i n A m e r i c a n Cyanamid. I t would seem t h e s u g g e s t i o n m ight have some m e r i t i f one can 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 306 307 i n K a r a g e o r g i s and Mareva would n ot l i k e l y have s u c -ceeded i n o b t a i n i n g i n j u n c t i o n s under L o r d D i p l o c k ' s t e n e t s 1 24 f o r damages would a d e q u a t e l y have compensated them i n b o t h c a s e s , p r e c l u d i n g t h e g r a n t i n g o f e q u i t a b l e r e l i e f . Whether t h e r e i s v e r a c i t y t o t h e s u g g e s t i o n i s o f c o u r s e o n l y s p e c u l a t i o n n o t l i k e l y p o s s i b l e o f c o r r o b o r a t i o n . As t h e c o u r t s i n t h i s c o u n t r y c o n t i n u e t o c l a r i f y t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y 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 Denning i n 1975 may become more r e l e v a n t . As f o r any i n t e r l o c u t o r y i n j u n c t i o n , l i t i g a n t s a f f e c t e d by a Mareva o r d e r , as w e l l as t h i r d p a r t i e s , 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 v a r i e d , s e t a s i d e o r d i s s o l v e d , o r even t o a p p e a l t h e d e c i s i o n . Those s t e p s i n t h i s j u r i s d i c t i o n a r e s t i l l v e r y r a r e , p e r h a p s c o n f i r m i n g t h a t t h e o r d e r i s b o t h u s e f u l and a p p r o p r i a t e . As consequences o f t h e r e l i e f become more w i d e -s p r e a d and i n f o r m e d j u d g e s and c o u n s e l f a i r l y r a i s e even more i n e v i t a b l e e f f e c t s , i t i s t o be hoped t h a t f u r t h e r c h a l l e n g e s w i l l e n a b l e even g r e a t e r r e f i n e m e n t s t o be s e t i n p l a c e . 1 25 FOOTNOTES CHAPTER X 304. (1979) 95 Law Q u a r t e r l y Review 474. 305. The s u g g e s t i o n i s t h a t o f L a z a r i d e s , s u p r a , f n 61, a t p. 52. 306. S u p r a , f n 9. 307. S u p r a , f n 8. 126 BIBLIOGRAPHY B a k e r , P.V. and Langan, P.S. S n e l l ' s P r i n c i p l e s o f E q u i t y . 2 8 t h e d i t i o n . London: Sweet & M a x w e l l , 1982. B l a c k , A. "The S h e r i f f t o t h e A i d o f Mareva, o r V i c e - v e r s a " (1981) New Law J o u r n a l 770. Bean, D a v i d . I n j u n c t i o n s . London: Oyez P r e s s , 1979, 1 s t ed. Bowers, J . and Rosen H. "Mareva I n j u n c t i o n : A n a l y s i s o f Recent C a s e s " (1981) New Law J o u r n a l 517. 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 t o New Z e a l a n d " [1980] 1 New Z e a l a n d L . J . 270. C h a r i t y , 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 A c r o b a t i c s " (1980) 12 J o u r n a l o f M a r i t i m e Law and Commerce 349. Dunlop, C.R.B. C r e d i t o r - D e b t o r Law i n Canada. T o r o n t o : C a r s w e l l , 1981. F a r r a r , J.H. "The E f f e c t o f a Mareva I n j u n c t i o n " (1979) J o u r n a l o f B u s i n e s s Law 278. Gapes, A. "The Development o f t h e Mareva J u r i s d i c t i o n " (1981) 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 170. G e r t n e r , E r i c . "Prejudgment Remedies:'A Need f o r R a t i o n a l -i z a t i o n " (1981) 19 Osgoode H a l l L. J . 503. Gr 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 Cyanamid" (1980) 40 Cambridge Law J o u r n a l 307. H e r z o g , P e t e r . C i v i l P r o c e d u r e i n F r a n c e . Volume 3 o f t h e Colu m b i a U n i v e r s i t y S c h o o l o f Law P r o j e c t 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 , 1967. 1 27 H e t h e r i n g t o n , C. "The Mareva 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 " (1980) 18 (N.S.W.) Law S o c i e t y J o u r n a l 55. "The A n g e l B e l l : The Mareva I n j u n c t i o n A n t i c -i p a t e s t h e D e f e n d a n t ' s Abuse n ot t h e P l a i n t i f f ' s Judgment" (1982) 20 Law S o c i e t y J o u r n a l 249. H o d g e k i s s , C C . "Mareva I n j u n c t i o n s - Recent A u s t r a l i a n Developments" (1983) 99 Law Q u a r t e r l y Review 7. J e s s i m a n , J o n L. "The Mareva I n j u n c t i o n " (1980) Harbour and  S h i p p i n g , September 1980, p. 15. G a r e t h H. "The R i s e o f t h e Mareva I n j u n c t i o n " (1980) 11 C_ o f Queensland Law J o u r n a l 133; a l s o i n The Cambridge L e c t u r e s . T o r o n t o : B u t t e r w o r t h s , 1981, p. 30. S i r M i c h a e l . "Modern Trends I n Commercial Law and P r a c t i c e " (1978) 41 Modern Law Review 1. J o n e s , K e r r , Lamek, P a u l S. A. " E q u i t a b l e Remedies" i n New Developments i n  th e Law o f Remedies 1981 Law S o c i e t y o f Upper Can- ada S p e c i a l L e c t u r e s 125. Don M i l l s : DeBoo, 1981 L a z a r i d e s , M. T. "The Mareva I n j u n c t i o n - an A n a l y s i s " ' ( 1 978 ) C i t y o f London Law Review 43 Levy , Nathan. " A t t a c h m e n t , Garnishment and Garnishment Ex-e c u t i o n : Some A m e r i c a n .Problems C o n s i d e r e d i n t h e L i g h t o f t h e E n g l i s h E x p e r i e n c e . " (1972-3) 5 C o n n e c t i c u t Law Review 399. "Mesne P r o c e s s i n P e r s o n a l A c t i o n s a t Common Law and t h e Power D o c t r i n e . " (1968) 78 Y a l e Law J o u r n a l 52. L i p s t e i n , K. " C o n f l i c t o f Laws - J u r i s d i c t i o n - Mareva I n j u n c t i o n " [ 1 978] 37 Cambridge 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 " (1980) 11 U n i v e r s i t y o f Queensland Law J o u r n a l 121. 1 28 M e i s e l , F r a n k "The Mareva I n j u n c t i o n - Recent Developments" (1980) L l o y d s Mar. & Comm. Law Q u a r t e r l y 38. "More on t h e Mareva I n j u n c t i o n " (1980) 18 Law  S o c i e t y J o u r n a l 165. M c A l l i s t e r . , D. M. Mareva I n j u n c t i o n s . T o r o n t o : C a r s w e l l , 1 983. P o w l e s , D a v i d G. "The Mareva I n j u n c t i o n " (1978) J o u r n a l o f B u s i n e s s Law 11. "The Mareva I n j u n c t i o n Expanded" (1981) J o u r n a l o f B u s i n e s s Law 415. "Mareva Round-Up" (1982) J o u r n a l o f B u s i n e s s Law 383. Ro g e r s , B. M. and H a t e l y , G. W. " G e t t i n g t h e P r e - t r i a l I n j u n c t i o n " (1982) 60 Can. B a r . Rev. 1. Rose, F. B. "The Mareva I n j u n c t i o n - At t a c h m e n t i n Personam" ( 1 9 8 1 ) L l o y d s Mar. & Comm. L. Q u a r t e r l y 1, 177. Sharpe, R o b e r t J . " I n t e r l o c u t o r y I n j u n c t i o n s : The P o s t -A m e r i c a n Cyanamid P o s i t i o n " i n S t u d i e s i n C i v i l  P r o c e d u r e , E r i c G e r t n e r , ed. T o r o n t o : B u t t e r -w o r t h s , 1 979. Stockwood, D a v i d T. "Mareva I n j u n c t i o n s " (1981) J o u r n a l o f  B u s i n e s s Law 415, 3 A d v o c a t e s Q u a r t e r l y 85. Wing, J.A. "More on t h e Mareva I n j u n c t i o n " (1981) Law I n s t i - t u t e J o u r n a l 181. 129 APPENDIX I - TABLE OF UNITED KINGDOM CASES A and B v. C, D, E, F, G and H (#1) [1980] 2 L l o y d s Rep. 200, 2 A l l E.R. 347 (1981) 2 W.L.R. 629, Q.B. 596 (Q.B.) A v. C (#2) [1981] 2 W.L.R. 634, 1 L l o y d s Rep. 559, 2 A l l E.R. 126, Q.B. 961 (Q.B.) A l l e n and O t h e r s v. Jambo H o l d i n g s L t d . and O t h e r s [1980] 1 W.L.R. 1252, 2 A l l E.R.'502 (U.K.C.A.) A s t r o E x i t o N a v i g a c i o n , S.A. v. S o u t h l a n d E n t e r p r i s e Co. and Nan Jong I r o n and S t e e l Co. (THE MESSINIAKI TOLMI) [1981] 2 L l o y d s Rep. 595 [ 1 982 ] 3 A l l / E . R . 335 (U.K.C.A.) A s s o c i a t e d 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) [1978] 1 L l o y d s Rep. 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 Co. L t d . (THE TATIANGELA) [1980] 2 L l o y d s Rep. 193 (Q.B.) Ba n k e r s T r u s t Co. v. S h a p i r a [1980] 1 W.L.R. 1273, 3 A l l E.R. 353 (U.K.C.A.) B a r c l a y - J o h n s o n . v . Y u i l l [1980] 1 W.L.R. 1259, 3 A l l E.R. 190 (Q.B.) A . J . Bekhor and Co. L t d . v. B i l t o n [1981] 1 A l l E.R. 491 (Q.B.) and [1981] 2 W.L.R. 601, 1 L l o y d s Rep. 491, 2 A l l E.R. 565, 1 Q.B. 923 (U.K.C.A.) CBS (UK) L t d . v. Lambert [1982] 3 W.L.R. 746, 3 A l l E.R. 237 (U.K.C.A.) C h a r t e r e d Bank v. Daklouche [1980] 1 W.L.R. 107, 1 A l l E.R. 205 (U.K.C.A.) C h i e f C o n s t a b l e o f Kent v. V. [1982] 3 W.L.R. 462, 3 A l l E.R. 36, [1983] 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 FRIENDSHIP) [1978] 1 L l o y d s Rep. 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) [1981] 1 W.L.R. 1262, 2 L l o y d s Rep. 458, 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) [1978] 1 W.L.R. 966, 1 L l o y d s Rep. 425, 3 A l l E.R. 164 (U.K.C.A.) Edward 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 I n t e r n a t i o n a l L t d . [1978] 1 A l l E.R. 976 (U.K.C.A.) 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 [1979] 1 L l o y d s Rep. 455 (U.K.C.A.) F a i t h P a n t o n P r o p e r t y P l a n L t d . v. Ho d g e t t s and A n o t h e r [1981] 1 W.L.R. 927, 2 A l l E.R. 877 (U.K.C.A.) 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) and Oceanblue Compania N a v i e r a S.A. as I n t e r v e n o r s [ 1 982 ] 1 W.L.R. 539, 1 L l o y d s Rep. 351*, 1 A l l E.R. 796 (U.K.C.A.) Gebr. Van Weelde S c h e e p v a a r t K a n t o o r B.V. v. Homeric M a r i n e S e r v i c e s L t d . (THE AGRABELE) [1979] 2 L l o y d s Rep. 117 (Q.B.) H i t a c h i 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 Compania N a v i e r a S.A. [1981] 2 L l o y d s Rep. 498 (U.K.C.A.) I b r a h i m Shanker and Co. and O t h e r s v. D i t o s Compania N a v i e r a S.A. (THE SISKINA) [1977] 3 W.L.R. 818, 3 A l l E.R. 803, [1978] 1 L l o y d s Rep. 1, (1979) A.C. 210 (H.L.) I n t r a c o L t d . v. N o t i s S h i p p i n g Corp. (THE BHOJA TRADER) [1981] 2 L l o y d s Rep. 256 (U.K.C.A.) I r a q u i M i n i s t r y o f Defence v. A r c e p e y S h i p p i n g Co. S.A. ( G i l l e s p i e B r o t h e r s and Co. 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. 632, 1 A l l E.R. 480, [1981] 2 W.L.R. 488, 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 . [1981] F.S.R. 286 (Q.B.) M.B.P.X.L. Corp. v. I n t e r c o n t i n e n t a l B a n k i n g Corp. L t d . [1975] C.A.T. 411 (U.K.C.A.) M a r a z u r a N a v e g a c i o n S. A. and O t h e r s v. Oceanus M u t u a l Under-w r i t i n g A s s o c i a t i o n (Bermuda) L t d . and John L a i n g (Management) L t d . [1977] 1 L l o y d s Rep. 283 (Q.B.) Mareva Compania N a v i e r a S.A. v. I n t e r n a t i o n a l B u l k c a r r i e r s S.A. (THE MAREVA) [1975] 2 L l o y d s Rep. 509,' [1980] 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. Pugnan ( U n r e p o r t e d , August 2, 1980, The Times) (U.K.C.A.) M o n t e c c h i v. Shimco (U.K.) L i m i t e d [1979] 1 W.L.R. 1180, [1980] 1 L l o y d s Rep. 50 (U.K.C.A.) N e g o c i o s d e l Mar S.A. v. D o r i c S h i p p i n g Corp. S.A. (THE ASSIOS) [1979] 1 L l o y d s Rep. 331 (U.K.C.A.) Nippon Yusen K a i s h a v. K a r a g e o r g i s [1975] 1 W.L.R. 1093, 2 L l o y d s Rep. 137, 3 A l l E.R. 282 (U.K.C.A.) O c e a n i a C a s t e l a n a Armadora 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) [1983] 2 A l l E.R. 65 (Q.B.) P r i n c e A b d u l Rahman v. Abu-Taha and A n o t h e r [1980] 1 W.L.R. 1268, 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. Di x o n and A n o t h e r [1983] 2 A l l E.R. 158 (Q.B.) P r o j e c t Development Co. L t d . S.A. v. K.M.K. S e c u r i t i e s L t d . and O t h e r s [1982] 1 W.L.R. 1470 [1983] 1 A l l E.R. 465 (Q.B.) Rasu 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 MAN-HATTAN DUKE) [1977] 2 L l o y d s Rep. 397, 3 A l l E.R. 324, (1978) 1 Q.B. 644 (U.K.C.A.) THE RENA K [1979] 1 A l l E.R. 397, 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 . [1981] 1 W.L.R 894, L l o y d s Rep. 556, 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. and O t h e r s (THE VENUS DESTINY) [1980] 1 W.L.R. 460, 2 L l o y d s Rep. 116, 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) [1979] 3 W.L.R. 122, 2 L l o y d s Rep. 184, 2 A l l E.R 972, Q.B. 645 (U.K.C.A.) U n i t e d Bank L t d . v. C l a y b r i d g e S.A. ( U n r e p o r t e d , L.Mar.L News, A p r . 1980) (U.K.C.A.) Z L t d . v. A-Z and AA-LL [1982] 2 W.L.R. 288, 1 L l o y d s Rep 240, 1 A l l E.R. 556, Q.B. 558 (U.K.C.A.) 133 APPENDIX I I - TABLE OF CANADIAN CASES A d l e r v. Fundex I n t e r n a t i o n a l L t d . e t a l (1982) A.C.W.S. 147 (Ont. H.C.) Al 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" and 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. Hunt [1981] 1 W.W.R. 209, [1980] 114 D.L.R. (3d) 35, 16 C.P.C. 168 (N.W.Terr. Sup. C r t . ) Bank o f M o n t r e a l v. Appcon L t d . [1981] 123 D.L.R. (3d) 394, 33 O.R. (2d) 97 (Ont. H.C.) Bank o f M o n t r e a l v. James Main H o l d i n g s L t d . (1982) 26 C.P.C. 266 (Ont. H. C.) 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 (1981) 32 O.R. (2d) 9 , 21 C.P.C. 127 (Ont. D i v . C r t . ) C a i s s e P o p u l a i r e L a u r i e r e t a l v. G u e r t i n e t a l (1983) 19 A.C.W.S. 467 (Ont. H.C.) Ca 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 (1981) 8 A.C.W.S. 168 (Ont. H. C.) C.D.N. R e s e a r c h and Development L t d . v. The Bank o f Nova S c o t i a e t a l (1981) 32 O.R. (2d) 578, 121 D.L.R. (3d) 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 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 [1982] 136 D.L.R. (3d) 656. Ca 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. Hi n d [1981] 122 D.L.R. (3d) 498, 32 O.R. (2d) 591, 14 B.L.R. 233, 22 C.P.C. 179 (Ont. 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 (1982) 36 O.R. (2d) 124 (Ont. H. C.) and (1983) 39 O.R. (2d) 513, 141 D.L.R. (3d) 268 (Ont. C. A. ) Dean v. F o r d C r e d i t Canada L t d . e t a l (1982) 38 B.C.L.R. 145 (B.C.S.C.) 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 L i m i t e d v. Hean (1982) 34 B.C.L.R. 158 (B.C.S.C) E l s e g u r o I n c . v. Ssangyong S h i p p i n g Co. L t d . (1981) 117 D.L.R. (3d) 105, (1980) 19 C.P.C. 1, 2 F . C 326 ( F e d . C r t . Canada) E r i e M a n u f a c t u r i n g Co. (Canada) L t d . v. Rogers (1981) 24 C.P.C. 132 (Ont. H. C.) F e i g e l m a n e t a l v. Ae 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 [1983] 143 D.L.R. (3d) 715, 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 . Fotomat Corp. e t a l (1983) 20 A.C.W.S. 50 (Ont. D i v . C r t . ) G a s s i e r v. G a s s i e r e t a l (1983) 18 A.C.W.S. 351 (Ont. D i s t r i c t C r t . ) Humphreys v. ' B u r a g l i a ( 1 982) 1 35 D.L.R. (3d) 535, 39 N.B.R. (2d) 674, 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 (1981) 35 N.B.R. (2d) 265, 88 A.P.R. 265 (N. B. Queens Bench) L i b e r t y N a t i o n a l Bank and T r u s t Co. v. A t k i n e t a l (1981) 121 D.L.R. (3d) 160, 31 O.R. (2d) 715, 20 C.P.C. 55 (Ont. H. C.) Manousakis v. Manousakis (1979) 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 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 and 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) ( u n r e p o r t e d , T-1736-81) ( 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 [1981] 118 D.L.R. (3d) 367, 30 O.R. (2d) 238, 12 B.L.R. 224 (Ont. H. C.) O . S . F . I n d u s t r i e s L t d . v . Mar c - J a y I n v e s t m e n t s I n c . [1978] 88 D.L.R. (3d) 446, 20 O. JR. (2d) 566, 7 C.P.C 57 (Ont. H. C.) 135 P a r k e s v. C l a r k e , O x l e y 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 . (1983) 42 B.C.L.R. 268 (B.C.S.C.) Parmar 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 (1982) 141 D.L.R. (3d) 498, 53 N.S.R. (2d) 338, 109 A.P.R. 338 (N.S.S.C.) Quinn v. M a r s t a C e s s i o n S e r v i c e s L t d . e t a l (1981) 34 O.R. (2d) 659 (Ont. H. C.) and (1982) 37 O.R. (2d) 373 ( l e a v e g r a n t e d ) R o b e r t R e i s e r and Co. I n c . v. Nadore Food P r o c e s s i n g E q u i p -ment L t d . e t a l [1977] 81 D.L.R. (3d) 278, 17 O.R. (2d) 717 (Ont. H.C.) Rosen e t a l v. P u l l e n e t a l [1982] 126 D.L.R. (3d) 62 (Ont. H.C.) R o y a l Bank o f Canada v. F a b r i c u t L t d . e t a l (1982) 14 A.C.W.S. 513 (Ont. H. C.) Sask-Workwear I n c . v. O l l i n i k (1982) 68 C.P.R. (2d) 232, ( 1.983 ) 1 W.W.R. 631 (Sa s k . Q.B.) 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. Ssangyong S h i p p i n g C orp. L t d . (1980) ( U n r e p o r t e d , T-3231-80) (Fed. C r t . Canada) S e a f o r t h Fednav I n c . and F e d e r a l Commerce and N a v i g a t i o n L t d . v. E x t a c a Armadora and Norman Tammberg (1981) ( u n r e p o r t e d , T-5067-81) ( F e d . C r t . Canada) S e k i s u i House K a b u s h i k a K a i s h a v. Nagashima e t a l (1983) 42 B.C.L.R. 1 (B.C.C.A.) Van Brugge 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 (1982) 35 O.R. (2d) 333 (Ont. H. C.) W i n t e r e t a l v. O l a n e t a l (1981) 9 A.C.W.S. 410 (Ont. H. C.) 1 36 APPENDIX I I I - SAMPLE UNREPORTED B.C. CASES Greenwood F o r e s t P r o d u c t s (1969) L t d . v. W e s t g u l f E x p o r t Lumber Co. I n c . e t a l ( U n r e p o r t e d SCBC C81 2750, . June 25, 1980 - P r o u d f o o t , J . , Vancouver 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 and 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 and 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 . , Vancouver 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 . ( U n r e p o r t e d SCBC C821759, A p r i l 7, 1982 - M c C l e l l a n , L . J . S . C , Vancouver 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" upon Defendant 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 Corp. ( U n r e p o r t e d SCBC C825834, O c t o b e r 12, 1982 - Dohm, J . , Vancouver R e g i s t r y ) J a n e t S c o t t S l e e p Systems L i m i t e d v. John Thompson e t a l ( U n r e p o r t e d SCBC C827122, December 7, 1982 - Hud d a r t , L . J . S . C , Vancouver R e g i s t r y ) Bank o f M o n t r e a l v. Robson ( U n r e p o r t e d SCBC 020/82, March 2, 1 982 - A r k e l l , L . J . S . C , Kelowna R e g i s t r y ) Dorfman H o l d i n g s L t d . and James S. Dorfman v. L. Maynard Fu h r e e t a l ( U n r e p o r t e d CC A c t i o n F825460, December 15, 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 S u p p l y Company e t a l v. Gary Audas e t a l ( U n r e p o r t e d SCBC C830812, March 14, 1983 - W a l l a c e , J . , Vancouver R e g i s t r y ) Deane v. LDS Corp. (1970) L t d . ( U n r e p o r t e d SCBC C831082, March 17, 1983 - M e r e d i t h , J . , Vancouver R e g i s t r y ) 1 37 APPENDIX IV NEW BRUNSWICK RULES OF C I V I L PROCEDURE PRESERVATION OF RIGHTS PENDING LITIGATION  RULE 40 I n t e r l o c u t o r y I n j u n c t i o n o r Mandatory Order 40.01 A r e q u e s t 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 o r mandatory o r d e r , o r f o r an 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 , by 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 , by m o t i o n , b u t , ,i n t h e f o r m e r c a s e , t h e r e q u e s t may be g r a n t e d o n l y on terms 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 d e l a y . 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 , where a m o t i o n under 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 be 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) S u b j e c t t o p a r a g r a p h ( 3 ) , a m o t i o n t o e x t e n d an i n j u n c t i o n may be made o n l y on n o t i c e t o a l l p a r t i e s a f f e c t e d by t h e o r d e r s o u g h t . ( 3 ) 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 m o t i o n t o e x t e n d an i n j u n c t i o n , o r (b) s e r v i c e o f a n o t i c e o f m o t i o n t o e x t e n d an i n -j u n c t i o n has not been e f f e c t e d on a l l p a r t i e s and, because o f e x c e p t i o n a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h e i n j u n c t i o n ought t o be e x t e n d e d , t h e 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 day s . 40.03 (1) Where a p e r s o n c l a i m s monetary r e l i e f , t h e c o u r t may 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 t o r e s t r a i n any p e r s o n from d i s p o s i n g o f , o r removing from New B r u n s w i c k , 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) I n c o n s i d e r i n g whether t o g r a n t an i n j u n c t i o n , t h e 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 na-t u r e 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 con-s i d e r whether t h e r e i s a r i s k o f t h e a s s e t s b e i n g d i s p o s e d o f o r removed from New B r u n s w i c k . (3) N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g R u l e 40.02, an i n j u n c t i o n may be 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 judgment. (4) Where an i n j u n c t i o n has been 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 judgment 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 damages, t h e i n j u n c t i o n s h a l l , w i t h o u t f u r t h e r o r d e r , c o n t i n u e i n e f f e c t u n t i l t h e judgment i s s a t i s f i e d . 40.04 U n l e s s o r d e r e d o t h e r w i s e , 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 o r mandatory o r d e r , t h e 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 have u n d e r t a k e n t o a b i d e by any o r d e r as 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 under t h i s r u l e e i t h e r and c o n d i t i o n s as may be o r mandatory o r d e r may be made u n c o n d i t i o n a l l y o r upon terms 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