Now known as a freezing order, a Mareva injunction is an interim court order preventing the dissipation by a party of assets forming part of the subject matter of a case pending trial. It was named after the case in which the Court of Appeal confirmed the existence of the relevant jurisdiction, whose 50th anniversary is being marked this year. 

The Mareva is a good example of a landmark — or perhaps I should use the more maritime cliche, “flagship”— case that should have been reported in The Law Reports — but wasn’t — and for all the usual reasons. It followed (ie applied the same principle as) a case that had already been reported in the Weekly Law Reports (Nippon Yusen Kaisha v Karageorgis [1975] 1 WLR 1093) —  as Denning MR points out in the first para of his judgment in The Mareva —  so it established no new principle. Granted, there were doubts about that earlier case which, like The Mareva itself, was heard ex parte (only the applicants were represented, so there were no countervailing submissions). But the historic injunction was for ever after named after the second case, not the forerunner that actually set the precedent. And ICLR (whose reportability criteria are legendarily strict) has had to live with that ever since.

The All England Reports did report The Mareva, but only as a note, five years later. It was appended, without a headnote, to a full report of Chartered Bank v Daklouche [1980] 1 All ER 205 (also reported by ICLR as [1980] 1 WLR 107) which was another case about injunctions. The Mareva was reported at the time in Lloyd’s Law Reports, which is not surprising, as it arose in a maritime context, and also noted in The Times, Solicitors’ Journal, and New Law Journal.

However, ICLR did go on to report a number of later Mareva-related cases, including the case of Z Ltd v A–Z and AA–LL [1982] QB 558 in which the whole practice of Mareva injunctions, including their effect on banks and other third parties with notice, was reviewed by a strong Court of Appeal, having been fully argued inter partes. (A personal note: I remember that case in particular because during the hearing I appeared in Lord Denning’s court as a very spotty first six pupil taking notes behind Richard Slowe and Philip Shepherd for the plaintiffs.)

That might have been the latest moment at which to add The Mareva as a note. Seven years seems a longish time to overlook an important precedent; but it’s nothing compared to the 50 years that have now passed since the case was decided. An anniversary of which those responsible for its fame can be truly proud. They include Bernard Rix, counsel for the applicant shipowners, and their solicitors, Holman, Fenwick & Willan (HFW), whose litigation partner Brian Perrott recently spoke to Sir Bernard, as he now is, about the case. See (via YouTube) In Conversation With Sir Bernard Rix: 50 Years of Mareva Injunctions. He reveals, among other things, his role in ensuring that the injunction took on the name of his case, and was not (perhaps more properly) known as a “Karageorgis injunction”.

See also: “The Big Freeze”: The Rise and Rise of the Mareva Injunction, A Talk given by Mr Justice Foxton to Manchester Business and Property Courts Forum on 30 October 2024.

Postscript. Do we miss cases now? We believe not, and defend our selectivity against the rising tide of over-citation. But in any case such an omission would now be less critical, given the ready availability of unreported judgments on the internet, and the speed and coverage of legal commentary. Fifty years ago, the “gatekeeping” role of the generalist series was tempered only by the existence of specialist series to ensure that potentially important cases were not consigned to oblivion. Our role now is to ensure that what is reported is genuinely worthy of citation, and that what is published is properly discoverable.

Featured image: Photo by Zoltan Tasi on Unsplash