ABSTRACT
In order to obtain a Mareva injunction, the plaintiff must convince the court that there is a real risk that the defendant will remove assets from the jurisdiction or dissipate or dispose of them.28 Although it is now clear that a Mareva injunction may be made against a resident as well as a non-resident defendant,29 the court is more likely to infer a risk of disposal where the defendant is resident outside the jurisdiction or is a company based abroad.30 On the other hand, the mere fact that a defendant is a foreigner with assets within the jurisdiction does not in itself warrant the grant of an injunction,31 for, as Kerr LJ emphasised in Z Ltd v A-Z, an injunction should not be made against a defendant who has substantial links with the jurisdiction, such as ‘persons or concerns who are established within the jurisdiction in the sense of having assets here which they could not, or would not wish to dissipate merely to avoid some judgment which seems likely to be given against them’.32 This approach was taken in Coosals Quarry Ltd v Teamwork (Trinidad) Ltd,33 where a Mareva injunction was sought against a company incorporated in Trinidad & Tobago and a subsidiary of a wellestablished foreign company specialising in large scale engineering works and road building. The injunction was refused by Sharma J on the ground, inter alia, that the defendant had been involved in several projects in Trinidad & Tobago and there was no evidence that the company was likely to dispose of or remove its assets from the jurisdiction.
