Where Mareva injunctions have not been personally served on defendants as required by Rule 66.10(1), the court may still make findings of contempt and impose fines under Order 75.11, but cannot order committal or sequestration. A party bound by a Mareva injunction who jointly decides with a co-defendant to withdraw funds, even where the co-defendant physically carries out the transactions, is liable for contempt on the basis of aiding and abetting. The question whether the Jones v Dunkel principle applies in contempt proceedings was raised but left open.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 17 later cases that cite this judgment.