The Mareva injunction (variously known also as a freezing order or Mareva order), in Commonwealth jurisdictions, is a court order which freezes assets so that a defendant to an action cannot dissipate their assets from beyond the jurisdiction of a court so as to frustrate a judgment. It is named for Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulkcarriers SA, decided in 1975, although the first recorded instance of such an order in English jurisprudence was Nippon Yusen Kaisha v Karageorgis in 1975, decided very shortly before the Mareva decision; however, in the UK the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 now define a Mareva order as a "freezing" order. It is widely recognised in other common law jurisdictions and such orders can be made to have world-wide effect. It is variously construed as part of a court's inherent jurisdiction to restrain breaches of its process. The English noun Commonwealth dates originally from the fifteenth century. ... An injunction is an equitable remedy in the form of a court order that either prohibits or compels (restrains or enjoins) a party from continuing a particular activity. ... A defendant or defender is any party who is required to answer the complaint of a plaintiff or pursuer in a civil lawsuit before a court, or any party who has been formally charged or accused of violating a criminal statute. ... A lawsuit is a civil action brought before a court in which the party commencing the action, the plaintiff, seeks a legal remedy. ... In law, jurisdiction (from the Latin jus, juris meaning law and dicere meaning to speak) is the practical authority granted to a formally constituted legal body or to a political leader to deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters and, by implication, to administer justice within a defined area... A judgment or judgement (see spelling note below), in a legal context, is synonymous with the formal decision made by a court following a lawsuit. ... 1975 (MCMLXXV) was a common year starting on Wednesday. ... 1975 (MCMLXXV) was a common year starting on Wednesday. ... Abuse of process is a common law intentional tort. ...

It is not a security (Jackson v Sterling Industries Ltd), nor a means to pressure a judgment debtor (Camdex International Ltd v Bank of Zambia (No. 2)), nor does it confer a proprietary interest in the assets of the judgment debtor (Cretanor Maritime Co Ltd v Irish Marine Management Ltd). However, some authorities have treated the Mareva injunction as an order to stop a judgment debtor from dissipating his assets so as to have the effect of frustrating judgment, rather than the more strenuous test of requiring an intent to abuse court procedure. An example of the former would be paying off a legitimate debt (Iraqi Ministry of Defence v Arcepey Shipping Co SA), whereas an example of the latter would be hiding the assets in overseas banks on receiving notice of the action.

It is recognised as being quite harsh on defendants because the order is often granted at the pre-trial stage in ex parte hearings, based on affidavit evidence alone. A Mareva injunction is often combined with an Anton Piller order in these circumstances. This can be disastrous for a defendant as the cumulative effect of these orders can be to destroy the whole of a business' custom by freezing most of its assets and revealing important information to its competitors. Ex parte is a Latin legal term meaning from (by or for) one party (pronounced ekss par-TAY or ekss par-TEE, although the proper Latin is Eks PAR-teh). An ex parte decision is one decided by a judge without requiring the plaintiff to be present. ... An affidavit is a formal sworn statement of fact, written down, signed, and witnessed (as to the veracity of the signature) by a taker of oaths, such as a notary public. ... In British and British-derived legal systems, an Anton Piller order (frequently misspelt as Anton Pillar order) is a court order which provides for the right to search premises without prior warning. ...

A freezing order will ususally only be made where the claimant can show that there was at least a good arguable case that they would succeed at trial and that the refusal of an injunction would involve a real risjk that a judgment or award in their favour would remain unsatisfied (Ninemia Maritime corporation v Trave Schiffhartgesellschaft m.b.H und Co.K.G [1983] 1 WLR 1412).

See also

• Injunction
• Anton Piller order

An injunction is an equitable remedy in the form of a court order that either prohibits or compels (restrains or enjoins) a party from continuing a particular activity. ... In British and British-derived legal systems, an Anton Piller order (frequently misspelt as Anton Pillar order) is a court order which provides for the right to search premises without prior warning. ...

Reference

• Denis SK Ong, 'Unsatisfactory Aspects of the Mareva Order and Anton Piller Order' (2005) 17(1) Bond Law Review 92.