Mareva Compania Naviera S.A. v International Bulkcarriers S.A.
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE ROSKILL,LORD JUSTICE ORMROD |
| Judgment Date | 23 June 1975 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1975] EWCA Civ J0623-5 |
| Date | 23 June 1975 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
[1975] EWCA Civ J0623-5
The Master of the Rolls (Lord Denning)
Lord Justice Roskill and
Lord Justice Ormrod
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Exparte appeal from judgment of Mr. Justice Donaldson refusing to extend an Junction beyond 5 o'clock this afternoon.
MR. B. SIX (instructed by Messrs. Holman, Fenwick and Willan) appeared on behalf of the Plaintiffs.
There was no other appearance.
This raises a very important point of practice. It follows on a case which we had the other day, the Nippon Yusen kaisha v. Karageorgis. The plaintiffs. Mareva Compania Naviers S.A. are ship owners who owned the vessel Mareva. They let it to the defendants International Bulkcarriers S.A. on a time charter for a trip out of the far East and back. The vessel was to be put at the disposal of the defendants at Rotterdam. Hire was payable half monthly in advance and the rate was 3850 dollars a day from the time of delivery. The vessel was duly delivered to the defendants on 12th May 1975. the defendants sub-chartered it. They let it on a voyage charter to the President of India. Freight was payable under that voyage charter: 90% was to be paid against the documents and the 10% later. under that voyage charter the vessel was loaded at Bordeaux on 29th May 1975 with a cargo of fertiliser consigned to India. The Indian High Commission. in accordance with the obligations under the voyage charter. paid 90% of the freight. But paid it to a back in London. It was paid out to the Bank of Bilbao in London to the credit of the time charterers. The total sum which the India High Commission paid into the bank was £174,000. Out of that the time charterers paid to the ship owners the plaintiffs. the first two installments of the half monthly hire. They paid those installments by credit transferred to the shipowners. The third was due on 12th June 1973; but the time charterers failed to pay it. They could easily have done it, of course, by making a credit transfer in favour of the shipowners. But they did not do it. Telexes passed which make it quite plain that the time charterers were unable to pay. They said they were not able to fulfil any part of their obligations under the charter and they had no alternative but to stop trading. Their efforts to obtain further financial support had been freuitless. whereupon the owners ofthe vessel treated the defendants conduct as a repudiation of the charter. They issued a writ on 20th June. They claimed the unpaid hire which comes to 30,800 U.S. dollars and damages for the repudiation. The total will be very large. They have served the writ on agents here, and they have applied also for service out of the jurisdiction. But meanwhile they believe that there is a grave danger that these moneys in the bank in London will disappear. So they have applied for an injunction to restrain the disposal of those moneys which are now in the bank. They rely on the recent case of Nippon Yusen Kaisha v. Karageoris. Mr. Justice Donaldson felt some doubt about that decision because we were not referred to Lister v. Stubbs (1890) 45 Ch. D. 1. There are observations in that case to the effect that the Court has no jurisdiction to protect a creditor before he gets judgment. Lord Justice Cotton said: ";I know of no case where, because it was highly probable that if the action were brought to a hearing the plaintiff could establish that a debt was due to him from the defendant, the defendant has been ordered to give security until that has been established by the judgment or decree". And Lord Justice Lindley said: …" we should be doing what I conceive to be very great mischief if we were to stretch a sound principle to the extent to which the appellants ask us to stretch it"… Mr. Justice Donaldson felt that he was bound by Lister v. Stubbs and that he had no power to grant an injunction. But, in deference to the recent case, he did grant an injunction, but only until 5 o'clock today, on the understanding that by that time this Court would be able to reconsider the position.
Now today Mr. Bix has been very helpful. He has drawn our attention not only to Lister v. Stubbs but also to section 45 of the Judicature Act, which repeats section 25(8) of the Judicature Act 1875. It says: ";A mandamus or an injunction may begranted or a receiver appointed by an interlocutory order of the court in all cases in which it shall appear to the court to he just or convenient. In Beddow v. Beddow (1878) 9 Ch. D. 89. Sir George Jessel. the then Master of the Rolls gave a very wide interpretation to that section. He said: I have unlimited power to grant an injunction in any case where it would be right or just to do so." There is only one qualification to be made. The Court will not grant an injunction to protect a person who has no legal or equitable right whatever. That appears from North London Railway Co. v. Great Northern Railway Co. (1883) 11 Q.B.D. 30. But subject to that qualification the statute gives a wide general...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Civil Interim Measures In England **
...Freezing orders Background The order takes its name from Mareva Campania Naviera S.A. v International Bulkcarriers S.A. [1975] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 509. The Civil Procedure Rules now refer to it as a freezing injunction (CPR 25.1 (1)(f). It developed as a form of recourse against foreign-based de......
-
Mareva more than a cigar!
...of the court by Lord Denning in 1975, and takes its name from Mareva Compania Naviera S.A. v. International Bulkcarriers Ltd., [1975] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 509 (C.A.). In the UK, it has recently been renamed as a "freezing Marevas were formally endorsed in Canada in Chitel v. V. Rothbart (1982), 3......
-
Will The Supreme Court Rein In Evasive Defendants? Equustek v Google Inc
...remedies available to all IP owners. Footnotes 1 Named for Mareva Compania Naviera S.A. v. International Bulkcarriers S.A., [1975] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 509 (C.A.). See Aetna Financial Services v. Feigelman, [1985] 1 SCR 2. 2 See Anton Piller KG v. Manufacturing Processes Ltd., [1976] 1 Ch 55 (C.A......
-
Will the Supreme Court Rein in Evasive Defendants? Equustek v Google Inc
...of pre-hearing remedies available to all IP owners. [1] Named for Mareva Compania Naviera S.A. v. International Bulkcarriers S.A., [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 509 (C.A.). See Aetna Financial Services v. Feigelman, [1985] 1 SCR [2] See Anton Piller KG v. Manufacturing Processes Ltd., [1976] 1 Ch 5......
-
PRE-COMMENCEMENT DISCOVERY AND THE ODEX LITIGATION: COPYRIGHT VERSUS CONFIDENTIALITY OR IS IT PRIVACY?
...Mareva is essentially concerned with pre-trial protection of assets. See Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulkcarriers SA[1975] 2 Lloyds Rep 509. 33 See CBS Songs Ltd v Amstrad Consumer Electronics plc[1988] 2 All ER 484 where the copyright owner tried unsuccessfully to argue that......
-
ISSUES CONCERNING COMPLIANCE
...24. (240) Now known as a civil freeze order. (241) Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulk Carriers SA 'The Mareva' [1975] 2 Lloyd's Rep 509. (242) [1990] 1 QB 202. (243) Ibid. at 216-217. (244) L. J. Candler (1996) 'Tracing and Recovering Proceeds of Crime in Fraud Cases' in Rider ......
-
Litigation
...CPR), an “asset-preservation order” or a “Mareva” order (after the case of Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulk Carriers SA [1980] 1 All ER 213). See also Compania Sud Americana de Vapores SA v Hin-Pro International Logistics Ltd [2016] HKCFA 79 at [40], per Lord Phillips NPJ. 77......
-
Cross‐border asset protection: an offshore perspective
...banking secrecy and anonymity, in ref.3, ibid.(5) Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulk Carriers SA(`The Mareva') [1980] 1 All ER 213, CA.(6) Now called a `freezing injunction' in England and Wales,Part 25.1(1)(f)(i) of The Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (asamended), Statutory Instrum......