Read the full judgment text of CACV 310/1998 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 11 April 2007.
1. There were two summonses before me, one of the plaintiff and one of the defendant. That of the plaintiff sought that payments made out of assets subject to a Mareva injunction be varied, in an unspecified manner, or dispensed with, whilst that of the defendant sought that the injunction be discharged. It is axiomatic that if the defendant were to succeed, the plaintiff’s summons falls to be dismissed. After hearing argument on 3 April 2007 I discharged the Mareva injunction, dismissed the
Cited by 1 case