Read the full judgment text of HCCT000006/1997 on BabelCite. This HIGH COURT judgment was delivered on 4 April 1997 before the Hon Mr Justice Findlay in Chambers.
Mareva injunction — the plaintiff, as disponent owner of three ships, claimed unpaid charter fees from the defendant, a newly incorporated shipping company with no fixed assets and poor credit record. The plaintiff initially obtained an ex parte Mareva injunction which was discharged inter partes for lack of evidence of real risk of dissipation. Upon reconsideration, the judge held the power to alter his judgment before perfection in special circumstances: here, the plaintiff's solicitors were misled into thinking the defendant would not oppose and were unprepared. Having heard fuller arguments, the court found credible evidence that the defendant’s assets were rapidly disposable cash and that the defendant had repeatedly broken promises to pay. The court concluded there was a real risk the plaintiff’s judgment would remain unsatisfied without the injunction. Costs of the injunction application were ordered against the defendant. The injunction was continued until further order and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.
Legal issues: Whether the court can reconsider its refusal of Mareva injunction before judgment perfected · Whether a real risk of dissipation of assets justifies continuation of Mareva injunction · Costs order related to injunction application
Outcome: Mareva injunction continued until further order; defendant to pay plaintiff's costs