WHAT IS MAREVA INJUNCTION

Mareva Injunction originated out of an English Court of Appeal case called Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulkcarriers SA [1980]. The English Court of Appeal granted an injunction to prevent the monies being dissipated, hence the name ‘Mareva Injunction’.

Elements for a court to grant a Mareva Injunction

That being said, in order for the court to grant a Mareva Injunction there are certain conditions that need to be satisfied. Namely,

• the applicant has a good arguable case,
• there are assets within the Court’s jurisdiction
• there is a real risk that the wrongdoer will dissipate his assets.

To show a risk of dissipation, the plaintiff either needs some evidence that the defendant is about to move or hide the defendant’s assets or in the situation of fraud, the fraud itself shows propensity for dishonesty and the inference that the ill-gotten gains will be hidden or dissipated.

The Great Lunch

“Great men are not born great, they grow great” – The Godfather.

At least that was what I saw in Mr Chang on that particular day.

Let me get into the details, two hours before the hearing, Mr Chang instead of stressing out about it enjoyed his lunch with all my colleagues. As a matter of fact, he was joking around with the attachment students.  Little did I know our opponent was drafting their submission at that particular time. Perhaps one would wonder, is Mr Chang prepared for the case? Will he be able to fulfil his client’s expectations? However, it should be noted that the night before Mr Chang was gathering all the relevant reasonable facts and  figures  for the Honourable judge.

As a matter of fact, I had a chance to see Mr Chang draft an affidavit that night.

The Hearing

That afternoon, we entered into the chamber alongside with the Plaintiff’s counsel. The Plaintiff’s counsel alleged that the Defendants had mismanaged the company and there were untraced records of money withdrawal. As a result, the Defendants’ bank account was frozen, which affected the business as the Defendants’ were unable to issue payments to the relevant creditors, vendors and employees.

High Street Name

Mr Chang who was representing the Defendants argued that the Second Defendant’s surname is a English high street name and it would be absurd that he would take the money and flee the country. It is also worth mentioning that the Plaintiff’s counsel was seemingly puzzled when Mr Chang raised this point about the high street name synonymous to chic fashion; that the honourable  judge had to enlighten the Plaintiff’s counsel.

Moreover, Mr Chang also pointed out that the Second Defendant’s was a retired engineer in which strengthened his argument, signifying that it is highly unlikely that he would flee the country.

At this point, I realised that being alert and taking note of even the smallest details could be very beneficial for our argument in court.

Residential Status

Apart from that, the Plaintiff’s counsel argues that the Plaintiff should be made a cheque signatory, this would enable him to oversee any withdrawals made by the Defendants. Nevertheless, Mr Chang cleverly rebutted the Plaintiff’s counsel by stating that he has no right to do so as he is not a permanent resident unlike the Second Defendant. Probably, the Plaintiff is living in the country with a tourist visa.

The Plaintiff’s counsel insisted that his client is a resident, however, the Plaintiff’s counsel was unable to firmly state his residential status. Thus, this directly affected his right to be a cheque signatory.

Kill Them With Kindness

I understand that litigation is not always about how strong your facts are but to be able to predict the opponent’s argument and kill their arguments with kindness.

Ignorance of the business

Mr Chang also argued that it was not a wise decision for the Plaintiff to take over the management of the company for the simple reason that if he is an active director he would be able to identify or recognise all the stakeholders of the business.

A practical judge

We were also lucky to have a practical  judge for this case. The honourable  judge viewed this case in a very practical manner and encourage both parties to settle out of court by exploring every possible solution.

Mr Chang’s arguments were brilliant and he managed to persuade the judge to allow the bank to release the payment for the defendant to make payments to all relevant parties. Besides, the cash monies that are collected by the defendants are allowed to be used to pay the employees as they are refugees who are allowed to work in the country and for their day to day business transactions. It should be noted that Mr Chang only provided the estimated figure that the business needed, there was no supporting documents attached to it. Yet, the judge did not object to those payments because the Plaintiff’s counsel was unable to rebut.

An Order in 30 Minutes!!!

The honourable judge later gave both counsel 30 minutes to draft the order.

As a result, the Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to the terms of Mr Chang i.e for the bank to issue a specific sum for the Defendants to make their payment and also for them to use their cash monies to make relevant payments. However, this is subject to the Defendants need to present all the receipts , proceeds of sales and also the identity of the business employees to the Plaintiff.

The outcome

After such an intense discussion the judge agreed upon the agreement made by the two counsel.

Conclusion

In a nutshell, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Mr Chang for giving me this opportunity to experience this eye-opening hearing. This experience will definitely be the highlight of my internship in Alex Chang & co.

Just Saying Thank You Will Never Repay Your Kindness

Apart from that, I would like to also thank everyone in ACC for providing me guidance and knowledge that I’ll never forget. Also, thank you for treating me with lots of care and love.

Athanasia Yolanda Bartolome

University of London