Supreme Court
Action No. 68 of 1982
1st March, 1982
Rajasingham, J.

Sosa, Godfrey & Co., for the Plaintiffs.

Mareva Injunction - Application - Defendant residing out of jurisdiction - Principles on which Mareva Injunction may issue - Defendant likelihood that will remove asset from jurisdiction - Mareva Companies Naviera S.A. v International Bulk Carriers S.A. (1980) 1 AER 213, followed and adopted.

J U D G M E N T

This is a case in which the Plaintiffs have a valid claim for goods sold and delivered to the Defendant, but fear that they will not be able to obtain satisfaction of any judgment they may obtain in this Court for the reason that the Defendant resides outside the jurisdiction and has no known assets in Belize other than a truck now detained at the Mexican border. They are therefore asking that they be granted an injunction restraining the Defendant from removing that asset out of the jurisdiction. They have given an undertaking that they will meet any damages that may arise if the restraint is proved to have been obtained wrongfully by them.

I have referred to the so-called mareva injunction which is now being frequently granted in England. These injunctions follow from a decision of Lord Justice Denning in the case of Mareva Companies Naviera S.A. v. International Bulk Carriers S.A. (1980), 1 AER 213. Lord Justice Denning followed that decision in Siskina & Others v. Distos Companies Naviera S.A. In both these cases the facts were similar in substance to the present case, viz a provable valid claim against a Defendant outside the jurisdiction, but with assets within the jurisdiction, against the disposal of which an injunction was sought.

Lord Justice Denning cited section 45 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925, as permitting the Court to exercise a wide discretion in granting an injunction. Section 49 of our Supreme Court of Judicature Ordinance, Chapter 5, is in identical terms to that section. Thus, any exercise by this Court of a power similar to that exercised by Lord Justice Denning is permissible under a similar interpretation of the powers of the Court under that section, viz, as permitting the Court to grant an interlocutory injunction in such circumstances.

I am inclined to agree that it is desirable that, in a matter in which the Plaintiff has established a legal right to relief and there is a likelihood that before such a relief is granted it could be frustrated by a Defendant merely removing his assets from this jurisdiction, the Court should intervene and prevent such an avoidance of liability; to do otherwise would be to permit a mockery of the Laws and Courts of this country.

I therefore grant an injunction to restrain the removal or disposal of the Hasen Cargo Truck bearing United States of America, State of Illinois Licence Plate No. 6347F from Belize, pending the determination of the Plaintiffs' claim in this case. I would further urge that the Plaintiffs proceed expeditiously with this claim as the deterioration of the vehicle would result in damage to all parties.

----------OO----------