Jet West Ltd v Haddican
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE STOCKER,LORD JUSTICE FARQUHARSON |
| Judgment Date | 17 March 1992 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1992] EWCA Civ J0317-2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | 92/0257 |
| Date | 17 March 1992 |
[1992] EWCA Civ J0317-2
The Master of The Rolls
(Lord Donaldson)
Lord Justice Stocker
Lord Justice Farquharson
92/0257
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(MR. JUSTICE WRIGHT)
Royal Courts of Justice
MR. P. J. HOSER (instructed by Messrs. Dunn & Baker, Exeter) appeared for the Appellant (Third Defendants).
MR. BERNARD HADDICAN appeared in person on his own behalf and for the Second Defendant.
MR. T. H. KEITH (instructed by Messrs. William Stockler & Co.) appeared for the Respondents (Plaintiffs).
In this case we are faced with an appeal from a refusal by Mr. Justice Wright to order a Mareva injunction in support of a costs order. He declined to do so, but not on the basis of his appreciation of the merits of the application because he held that he had no jurisdiction to do so. In fairness to the learned judge, it should be said that this decision was reached very late on a Friday night after a long and highly tiresome day considering this case and, no doubt, other cases. He had no opportunity to look at the authorities and, with great respect to him, it was plainly wrong.
The history of the matter in brief is that there is a dispute between the plaintiffs and a variety of defendants, it being said that the business of the plaintiffs has been wrongfully syphoned away by the defendants. I need say no more about the details of the action which are not directly relevant. The plaintiffs, having begun these proceedings, on 15th January applied to Mr. Justice Potts ex parte for a Mareva injunction against the first three defendants in support of their claim. That injunction was granted. On the application of the defendants on 27th February Mr. Bennett Q.C., sitting as a deputy High Court judge, set aside the injunctions.
on 2nd March a further application was made ex parte to Mr. Justice Wright for the reimposition of the Mareva injunctions. That is a somewhat unusual application in the circumstances, unless there was additional evidence. However that may be, he reimposed the injunctions. On 13th March Mr. Justice Wright, on an inter partes application, discharged the Mareva injunctions primarily on the ground that, quite apart from the merits of the plaintiffs' claim which he regarded as tenuous in the extreme, the plaintiffs had no assets within the jurisdiction, showed no inclination to bring any assets within the jurisdiction and, accordingly, their counter-undertaking in damages, which is inherent in any Mareva injunction, was totally worthless. He ordered that the plaintiffs pay the defendants' costs on the indemnity basis.
The question then arose of whether there was a reasonable prospect, or perhaps even the slightest chance, that the plaintiffs would meet that order for costs, it being, of course, an order for the payment of costs in the usual way, namely costs to be agreed or, failing agreement, to be taxed. The defendants said that they would like a Mareva type injunction in aid of execution of that order, that execution to follow once the costs were taxed.
The learned judge came to the conclusion that there was no legal or equitable cause of action available to the defendants at that stage and that they would have to wait until the costs had been taxed, and then they could apply for Mareva injunctions. He expressed, not surprisingly, great regret that that should be, as he saw it, the position in law. As I have already said, he was in error and I can justify that, first of all, in terms of principle and, secondly, in terms of authority.
In terms of principle the Mareva injunction was introduced in the 1970's because the courts held that they must necessarily have jurisdiction and did have jurisdiction to prevent parties to actions frustrating their orders by moving assets out of the jurisdiction, or dissipating assets in one way or another, with a view to making themselves proof against a future judgment. Where you have someone who is already subject to a money judgment, including an order for costs, the same principle applies, namely that the courts will not allow people to set their orders at nought simply by removing assets from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Lai Yoke Ngan and Another v Chin Teck Kwee and Another
- YAM Tengku Iskandar ibni Almarhum Tengku Ahmad v Majlis Perajaan Negeri Kelantan
-
George Anthony Hylton v Georgia Pinnock (as Executrix of the Estate of Dorothy Mcintosh, Deceased), Lloyd's Property Development Ltd and Lloyd E. Gibson
...also agree that the power is usually exercised incidental and ancillary to and for the enforcement of the judgment. In Jet West Limited and another v Haddican and others [1992] 2 All ER 545, which was a case dealing with a mareva injunction in a matter relating to the payment of a costs or......
-
HM Revenue and Customs v Mr Imtiaz Ali
...event of the ship owners not meeting that obligation, before an action can be brought. 20 The next case I want to refer to is Jet West Limited v Haddican [1992] 1 WLR 487. This established, if it needed establishing, that a Mareva injunction may be granted or continued in support of an orde......
-
Table of Cases
...237 Jennings v Chow, 2008 BCSC no ............................. Jet West v Haddican, [1992] i WLR 487, [1992] 2 All ER 545 (CA) Jiang v Grand East Supermarket (2005), 29 CPC (6th) 121 (BCSC) 76, 77 98 75,150 John Stagliano v Elmaleh, 2006 FC 585 Jose v Riz, 200g BCSC 1075 236 90 JSC BTA Ban......