[ad_1]
A Mareva injunction is a court order that freezes a defendant’s assets in a civil suit to prevent them from being hidden or mixed. It can be granted ex parte and is issued if there is a reasonable possibility that the defendant could move assets out of reach. The injunction lasts until the case is decided, and if the plaintiff wins, damages are recovered and remaining assets released. An Anton Piller order is similar, allowing law enforcement to seize evidence without notice.
A Mareva injunction is a court order that can be used in Commonwealth nations to freeze the assets of a defendant in a civil suit if it is believed that the defendant might try to mix or hide them. This is done with the aim of controlling assets until the case has been decided to prevent situations where defendants move assets to avoid paying damages. Because they cause hardship for defendants, Mareva injunctions are granted only in cases where such a court order is clearly necessary.
The 1975 case Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulk Carriers SA is the basis for the Mareva injunction. Also known as a freezing injunction or freezing order, a Mareva injunction can be granted ex parte. This means that only one party has to file, and a judge can issue a court order without informing the other party. In the case of a Mareva injunction, notice to the other party may provide sufficient notice to move the assets before the injunction is approved.
This type of court order may be granted before a trial takes place or during a trial if a plaintiff is notified of circumstances that require the defendant’s assets to be frozen. To obtain a Mareva injunction, a plaintiff must show that there is a reasonable possibility that a defendant could move assets out of reach. Evidence supporting the claim is taken to court and reviewed by the judge. If the judge agrees, a Mareva injunction may be issued.
The injunction lasts until the case is decided. If the lawsuit is pronounced in favor of the defendant, the freeze is lifted. If the plaintiff wins the case, a court order for damages will be issued. By an executive order, the plaintiff can recover the damages and the remaining assets will be released to the defendant.
In 1976, a similar legal case involved the seizure of evidence without notice in Commonwealth nations. As with a Mareva injunction, an Anton Piller order may be granted in cases where it is believed that a strike would provide sufficient time for evidence to be destroyed. Because the preservation of evidence is critical to investigating and prosecuting cases, law enforcement agencies prefer to avoid situations where evidence is damaged or destroyed before it can be collected. With an order from Anton Piller, law enforcement agencies can search and seize without warning to catch people by surprise.
[ad_2]