Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulkcarriers SA The Mareva [1980] 1 All ER 213

You are here:
  • KB Home
  • Civil Procedure
  • Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulkcarriers SA The Mareva [1980] 1 All ER 213
< Back

Facts

  • The plaintiffs, Mareva Compania Naviera SA (“the Shipowners”) owned the vessel, “the Mareva”.
  • The Shipowners issued a writ on 25 June 1975 claiming against the defendants, International Bulkcarriers SA (“the Charterers”), unpaid hire and damages for repudiation of a charterparty.
  • On an ex parte application, Donaldson J granted an injunction until 23 June 1975 restraining the Charterers from removing or disposing out of the jurisdiction moneys standing to the credit of the Charterers’ account at a London bank.
  • Donaldson J felt that he had no power to grant an injunction due to the Shipowners not having a judgment for the debt but granted an injunction until 23 June 1975 to allow the Court to be able to reconsider the position.
  • The Shipowners appealed against Donaldson J’s refusal to extend the injunction beyond 23 June 1975.

Issues

  • Did the Court have the power to grant a Mareva injunction despite no judgment debt?

Held

  • The Court granted the order requested making use of the jurisdiction given to it by the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925 (UK) (“the Act“).
  • The Act allowed for a mandamus or an injunction to be granted or a receiver appointed by an interlocutory order of the Court in all cases in which it is just or convenient.
  • The order could be made even though it dealt with assets in which the plaintiff claimed no direct right.
  • In Beddow v Beddow ((1878) 9 Ch D 89, Jessel MR provided a wide interpretation to that section, stating that “I have unlimited power to grant an injunction in any case where it would be right or just to do so …
  • An injunction cannot be granted where there is no legal or equitable right to do so.

Quotes

“If it appears that the debt is due and owing, and there is a danger that the debtor may dispose of his assets so as to defeat it before judgment, the court has jurisdiction in a proper case to grant an interlocutory judgment so as to prevent him disposing of those assets.”

(Lord Denning MR)

Full Text

The full text is available here: http://www.uniset.ca/other/cs4/19801AER213.html


-- Download Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulkcarriers SA The Mareva [1980] 1 All ER 213 as PDF --


FavoriteLoadingSave this case