Where a plaintiff establishes an arguable case and a real risk of dissipation of assets, the Mareva injunction may still be refused if the arguable case is only barely established and there is no real confidence in the plaintiff's prospects of success at trial. The strength of the applicant's case is a critical factor in the balance of convenience, and as the apparent strength diminishes, the balance moves against the making of an order. Costs of an unsuccessful Mareva application may be reserved to the trial judge where there are unusual circumstances including that the applicant established a prima facie case and risk of dissipation, and the respondent engaged in apparent dishonesty in opposing the application.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 18 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 18 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.