Asset freezing

A freezing order will usually only be made where the claimant can show that there was at least a good arguable case that they would succeed at trial and that the refusal of an injunction would involve a real risk that a judgment or award in their favour would remain unsatisfied.A Norwich Pharmacal order is form of pre-action discovery that allows an aggrieved party to trace otherwise hidden or dissipated assets, with a view to their preservation.While it is not advisable to obtain such an order on purely strategic grounds,[13] asset freezing has a persuasive effect on settlement negotiations.The claimant will have no restrictions on legal fee spending, putting huge financial pressure on the defendant,[15][16] and negotiation and settlement avoid the return to court.[22] Since January 2017, a uniform European Account Preservation Order has been implemented in all EU member states (other than Denmark and the United Kingdom).[27] In place of Mareva, US civil jurisprudence relies more on prejudgment writs of attachment,[28] preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders,[29] which have a more limited scope of application.In 2007, Lord Bingham declared: Mareva (or freezing) injunctions were from the beginning, and continue to be, granted for an important but limited purpose: to prevent a defendant dissipating his assets with the intention or effect of frustrating enforcement of a prospective judgment.Such devices may be employed in cases where a victim of fraud suspects that targeted funds or assets may be transferred to another location where it might be impractical to gain access to them.
International sanctionsEconomic sanctionsUnited States embargoesJudicial remediesDamagesPunitive damagesIncidental damagesConsequential damagesLiquidated damagesReliance damagesStatutory damagesTreble damagesEquitable remediesInjunctionSpecific performanceConstructive trustAccount of profitsRescissionRectificationSubrogationAdequate remedyElection of remediesProvisional remedyTracingCourt costsDeclaratory reliefRestitutioninterlocutory injunctiondefendantactionassetsjudgmentbreaches of its processCommonwealthCivil Procedure Rules 1998Judicature Act 1873Jessel MRasset forfeitureproprietary interestex parteaffidavitAnton Piller orderLord DonaldsonNorwich Pharmacal orderScots lawFrench lawEuropean UnionDirective on the enforcement of intellectual property rightsEuropean Account Preservation OrderSupreme Court of the United StatesGrupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc.Justice ScaliaJudiciary Act of 1789Justice Ginsburgpreliminary injunctionsNew York Court of Appealsprejudgment writs of attachmenttemporary restraining ordersLord Donaldson MRLord BinghamHildyard JLiechtenstein AnstaltRimer Jultimate beneficial ownerCounty Court judgmentsde factoCollins, LawrenceLaw Quarterly ReviewBorden Ladner GervaisRestraint orderInternational and Comparative Law QuarterlyLoyola Marymount UniversityAllen & OveryGonzaga University School of LawFordham Law ReviewAmerican Cyanamid Co (No 1) v Ethicon LtdAmerican Bar AssociationWayback Machine