Injunctions, Mareva Relief & Asset Preservation Counsel

A civil search order — sometimes described as a private search warrant — permitting the entry, search, copying, and preservation of evidence at a defendant's premises before they have notice of the claim, used where there is a real risk that evidence will be destroyed or hidden.

An order compelling a non-party — often a bank, internet service provider, or other institution holding relevant information — to disclose records identifying a wrongdoer or tracing assets, even though that party is not itself accused of wrongdoing.

An ex parte, or without-notice, application is heard without the other side present or informed in advance — used only where advance notice would defeat the purpose of the relief sought, such as tipping off a defendant about to move assets or destroy evidence.

In genuinely urgent cases, interim relief can be sought — and, where the evidence justifies it, granted — within days, sometimes hours, on an ex parte basis. Speed depends on how quickly the evidentiary record can be assembled and the strength of the case for urgency.

Yes, in appropriate cases. Courts in many common-law jurisdictions can grant a worldwide freezing (Mareva) order against a defendant within their jurisdiction, and freezing relief can also be sought in the country where the assets are, with foreign counsel. Enforcement against assets abroad ultimately depends on the law of the country where they are located.

Yes. Courts can grant urgent injunctive relief to halt an imminent, prejudicial transaction — such as an undisclosed asset sale, improper share issuance, or removal of a director — pending a full hearing on the underlying dispute.

A sufficiently strong case on the merits — described in different courts as a strong prima facie case or a good arguable case; evidence that the defendant has assets within the jurisdiction (or, for worldwide relief, elsewhere); a real risk that those assets will be removed or dissipated to avoid judgment; full and frank disclosure; and an undertaking as to damages — with the balance of convenience favouring the order.

No. It is typically limited to the value of the claim and can carve out ordinary living and business expenses and legal fees. It is a preservation order, not a general seizure of assets.

A plaintiff seeking a Mareva injunction must undertake to compensate the defendant for losses caused by the order if it turns out to have been wrongly granted. Courts scrutinize this undertaking closely, and the applicant's ability to honour it can affect whether relief is granted.

Courts generally require four conditions, derived from the English Court of Appeal’s decision in Anton Piller KG v. Manufacturing Processes Ltd. (1975): an extremely strong prima facie case; very serious actual or potential damage to the applicant from the respondent's alleged misconduct; clear evidence that the respondent has incriminating documents or things in its possession; and a real possibility that the respondent may destroy that material before the ordinary disclosure process can do its work.

Under strict procedural safeguards — typically execution by an independent supervising solicitor, detailed evidence logs, and prompt return to court. Privilege and confidentiality must be protected throughout, and any overreach can undermine the order and the evidence it produced.

Generally where the applicant has a bona fide or arguable claim, the third party is involved in the acts complained of (even innocently), the third party is the only practicable source of the information, the third party can be indemnified for its costs, and the interests of justice favour disclosure. The order takes its name from Norwich Pharmacal Co. v. Customs and Excise Commissioners (House of Lords, 1973).

The party seeking disclosure generally bears the reasonable costs the third party incurs in complying, though the allocation can be addressed in the order itself.

Only for a short time. Courts generally grant without-notice relief for a limited period — often days rather than weeks — and fix a prompt return date on notice to the parties affected, where the order can be continued, varied, or set aside.

The applicant owes a duty of full and frank disclosure — to bring forward the strongest points against their own case, not just the points in their favour. Failing to disclose material facts can result in the order being set aside, regardless of the underlying merits.

Yes. The defendant can move to set aside or vary the order on the return date, and often does. That is why the initial materials must be built to withstand contest from the outset, not just to secure the order in the first instance.

Most common-law courts ask three questions: whether there is a serious issue to be tried, whether the applicant would suffer irreparable harm — harm that damages could not adequately remedy — without the injunction, and whether the balance of convenience favours granting relief.

Mandatory injunctions — which require a party to take positive action rather than refrain from something — are held to a higher standard: the applicant must usually show a strong case, meaning a strong likelihood of success at trial, rather than merely a serious issue to be tried.

Costs vary with the complexity of the evidentiary record and the urgency involved, but emergency relief is billed at senior counsel rates that reflect the compressed timeline and the stakes. We are direct about likely cost ranges at the outset.

Yes. A freezing order can be sought to preserve the debtor's assets while recognition and enforcement proceedings are underway, preventing the debtor from moving them beyond reach before the award or judgment can be enforced.

Yes. We regularly coordinate with foreign counsel on cross-border asset tracing, freezing relief, and enforcement, so that the proceedings in each jurisdiction work toward the same recovery.

Relief sought alongside or in support of a receivership application — often to preserve assets or restrain conduct pending appointment of a receiver, protecting creditor and stakeholder recovery while the insolvency process proceeds.

A lis pendens — in some jurisdictions a certificate of pending litigation — is a notice registered against real property to show that a claim affecting its title is before the court. It warns anyone dealing with the property and, in practice, freezes dealings with it. It is often sought alongside or instead of an injunction in real estate and fraud-related disputes.

Call +1 416 923 0003 or email [email protected]. Because timing often matters, we assess urgent matters directly and quickly, and can move to prepare materials the same day where warranted.

Yes. We regularly act as emergency motion counsel alongside general counsel and in-house legal teams, stepping in specifically for the urgent relief while existing counsel continues to manage the broader file.

The order is served and, where applicable, executed. On the return date, the other side can respond, and the order may be continued, varied, or set aside. The underlying dispute then proceeds — the injunction preserves the status quo; it does not resolve the case.