Skip Navigation LinksJersey Law > Judgments > Jersey Law Reports > JLR Subject-Matter Index
Subject-Matter Index — Injunctions

  Subject-Matter Index

Injunctions  


Adjournment. See Mareva injunction
Ancillary disclosure order. See Mareva injunction—ancillary disclosure order
Anti-suit injunction
circumstances in which made
order to seek discontinuance of parallel foreign proceedings akin to anti-suit injunction—granted to protect Jersey proceedings if Jersey forum conveniens and party’s (threatened) conduct of foreign proceedings unconscionable, i.e. oppressive, vexatious or interferes with due process—no general power to direct party’s litigation in foreign court—since comity important, Royal Court not readily to interfere with foreign courts and to support foreign orders, with equal respect expected for Jersey orders: De Sa v. Luis (Royal Ct.), 2009 JLR 44
Anton Piller order
abuse of process
placing surveillance equipment covertly in defendant’s offices is serious abuse of process—plaintiff’s failure to explain abuse is breach of duty of candour justifying immediate discharge of associated Mareva injunction: Mayo Associates S.A. v. Anagram (Bermuda) Ltd. (C.A.), 1995 JLR 190
circumstances in which made
ex parte application
duties of plaintiff—to seek least draconian order necessary for its protection—to make full and frank disclosure, including arguments for and against application and alternative, less intrusive orders (e.g. for preservation of evidence) and put all authorities and material before court—application to discharge or vary order to be dealt with as soon as possible and parties to be available at short notice: Nautech Servs. Ltd. v. CSS Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2013 (1) JLR 462
in exercise of inherent jurisdiction, Royal Court may make order only in exceptional circumstances: plaintiff must have strong prima facie case, show clear evidence that defendant has vital material and likely to destroy it to defeat ends of justice, and that no alternative remedy available—only exceptional circumstances justify application being made ex parte: Channel Islands & Intl. Law Trust Co. Ltd. v. Scarborough (Royal Ct.), 1989 JLR 354
third parties—may be available against third party if its relationship to defendant sufficiently close, e.g. financial adviser: Channel Islands & Intl. Law Trust Co. Ltd. v. Scarborough (Royal Ct.), 1989 JLR N–9
discharge
application to discharge or vary order to be dealt with as soon as possible and parties to be available at short notice—requirement that plaintiff be given 48 hours’ notice of such application inconsistent with Practice Direction (Royal Ct.) (Mareva Injunctions) (05/24)—should not be included unless expressly drawn to court’s attention: Nautech Servs. Ltd. v. CSS Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2013 (1) JLR 462
duty of candour
duty on party obtaining Anton Piller order or Mareva injunction to inform court rapidly of material developments—not abuse to fail to inform of amendment to plead new cause of action if not relevant to injunctions: Mayo Associates S.A. v. Anagram (Bermuda) Ltd. (C.A.), 1995 JLR 190

Anton Piller order cont.
nature of order
attempt to damage competitor—order against defendants (i.e. plaintiff’s former employees and new competitor company) authorizing removal of their computers and equipment prevents them from trading at all, not merely from using plaintiff’s confidential material—Anton Piller application impermissible attempt to damage competing business if order unnecessarily wide; plaintiff failed to make full and frank disclosure (including less intrusive orders, e.g. preservation of evidence); order of justice also prevented former employees from working for competitor for period exceeding contractual notice period; unjustifiable delay before defendants’ equipment returned; certain equipment returned unfit to use; and plaintiff’s unjustifiable application to shut down competitor’s website: Nautech Servs. Ltd. v. CSS Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2013 (1) JLR 462
draconian order to be made rarely and if no less intrusive alternative—courts to try to avoid infringing ECHR, art. 8 right to respect for private and family life: Nautech Servs. Ltd. v. CSS Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2013 (1) JLR 462
serious error for plaintiff incorrectly to inform court that order sought, which authorized removal of defendants’ computer equipment, followed English standard procedure—plaintiff to inform court of standard procedure and justify proposed, more draconian order: Nautech Servs. Ltd. v. CSS Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2013 (1) JLR 462
use of information obtained
implied undertaking only to use for purposes of litigation itself—undertaking breached if information disclosed by corporate plaintiff in report to investors on progress of litigation—misuse of information not in itself necessarily sufficiently serious to warrant discharge of associated Mareva injunction: Mayo Associates S.A. v. Anagram (Bermuda) Ltd. (C.A.), 1995 JLR 190
leave of court required for use of information obtained in other specified action outside jurisdiction—unless exceptional circumstances, affidavit required to support request to use information for purposes beyond those for which originally requested: G.H. Bass & Co. v. Royal Bank of Scotland PLC (Royal Ct.), 1989 JLR N–3
undertaking implied to use information only in case for which sought but court may allow use in other specified actions, within or outside jurisdiction, if identical cause of action, no abuse of process of court and interests of justice served: Guinness PLC v. Market & Acquisition Consultants Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 1987–88 JLR 104
Appert péril.” See Clameur de Haro—“appert péril
Breach of injunction
breach of Mareva injunction. See Mareva injunction
breach of non-molestation order. See FAMILY LAW (Domestic violence)
powers of arrest
power of arrest usually attached to injunction restraining removal of minor from jurisdiction: LS v. NS (Royal Ct.), 2007 JLR N [19]
under Powers of Arrest (Injunctions) (Jersey) Law 1998, art. 3(1), may attach power of arrest to injunction if necessary to protect person named—powers not attached automatically and may cause prejudice—power of arrest not renewed if plaintiff distressed but allegations against respondent minor and no previous proceedings for breach: LS v. NS (Royal Ct.), 2007 JLR N [19]
principles
not necessary to review minute details of alleged breach but to judge in broad perspective: Le Main v. Eves (No. 3) (Royal Ct.), 1999 JLR N–10
sentence
48 hours’ imprisonment appropriate for breach of injunction designed to prevent public allegations against election candidate: Le Main v. Eves (No. 3) (Royal Ct.), 1999 JLR N–10
standard of proof
breach of injunction to be proved beyond reasonable doubt: Sanguy v. Le Masurier (Royal Ct.), 1994 JLR N–9
Clameur de Haro
appert péril
visible wrongful act in course of commission, which can be stopped (to conserve but not recover property) by raising clameur—breach of condition of lease not appert péril if remedy sought is recovery of possession: Att. Gen. v. Williams (née Lewis) (Royal Ct.), 1968 J.J. 991

Clameur de Haro cont.
effect of clameur
brings matter in dispute within immediate cognizance of Royal Court, even if clameur wrongfully raised—continuance of act or interference by third party is contempt of court: Att. Gen. v. Williams (née Lewis) (Royal Ct.), 1968 J.J. 991
wrongful clameur—patently inappropriate clameur may attract fine—amount subject to mitigating factors, e.g. old age of plaintiff: Att. Gen. v. Williams (née Lewis) (Royal Ct.), 1968 J.J. 991
person committing “appert péril
may be committed by person or “gens de son mainpast,” i.e. group of his subordinates, e.g. servants and others under his protection—must be present and hear clameur being raised—clameur may not be raised against absent person at whose instance wrongful act done: Att. Gen. v. Williams (née Lewis) (Royal Ct.), 1968 J.J. 991
possession
simple possession of land for year and day preceding clameur adequate to support raising clameur—proof of title unnecessary but may be relevant in helping to decide possession: Att. Gen. v. de Carteret (Royal Ct.), 1987–88 JLR 626
when may be raised
only when an appert péril and wrongful act—cannot be raised if against Viscount’s officer attempting to enforce court order: In re Sarre (née Young) (Royal Ct.), 2000 JLR N–53
possession for year and day; appert péril; protection of land; raised against actor not instigator: Att. Gen. v. Flint (Royal Ct.), 2000 JLR N–52
Conditions of availability
existing cause of action
injunction only available as remedy in support of existing cause of action within jurisdiction and not cause of action in itself: Abbot Indus. Inc. v. Warner (Royal Ct.), 1985–86 JLR 375
inadequacy of damages
plaintiff seeking compensation from defendant in pre-trial negotiations estopped from later asserting that damages not adequate remedy, to maintain injunction against defendant: Weber v. Endriss (Royal Ct.), 1995 JLR N–13
mandatory injunction. See Mandatory injunction
Disclosure of assets and liabilities. See Mareva injunction
Distraint. See Provisional orders
Enquiry into damages. See Interlocutory injunction
Failure to apply for injunction. See ADVOCATES (Professional negligence)
Foreign proceedings. See Mareva injunction

Gens de son mainpast.” See Clameur de Haro
Inherent jurisdiction
prevention of wrong
Royal Court has inherent jurisdiction to prevent commission of wrong against another: Sayers v. Briggs & Co. (Jersey) Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 1964 J.J. 399
Interlocutory injunction
abuse of process of court
court has discretion to award damages for wrongful use of procedure, especially if application ex parte, e.g. interim injunction wrongfully obtained causing damage to enjoined party—not necessary that undertaking in damages given: Hughes v. Clewley (Royal Ct.), 1996 JLR 24
affidavits
no rule that application to be supported by affidavit except in case of Mareva injunction or application to lift interlocutory injunction: Walters v. Bingham (Royal Ct.), 1985–86 JLR 439
ordering or lifting of interim distraint on goods to be supported by affidavit except in case of action on pièce signée—no pièce signée if cheque stopped and action brought on original contract because countermanded cheque not admission of debt: Field Aircraft Servs. (Exeter) Ltd. v. Kenton Utils. & Devs. Ltd. (C.A.), 1987–88 JLR 78
application procedure
application for ex parte injunction to make full and frank disclosure of essential facts and not rely on court’s own knowledge and inquiries: Talika Invs. Ltd. v. Olec Properties Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 1990 JLR 200
in ex parte application to demonstrate serious risk of injustice to applicant if application made inter partes and give cross-undertaking in damages: Milner v. Milner Labs. Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2000 JLR 266
balance of convenience
party seeking new injunction or lifting of existing injunction has burden of showing balance of convenience favours grant or discharge: Walters v. Bingham (Royal Ct.), 1985–86 JLR 439
Committees of States
no restraint on Committee’s exercise of statutory powers or discharge of public duties unless plaintiff shows real prospect of obtaining permanent injunction at trial—wide view to be taken on balance of convenience including general public interest as “special factor”: Glendale Hotel Holdings v. Tourism Cttee. (Royal Ct.), 1991 JLR N–11
court’s power to impose new injunction
may reimpose injunction following discharge for impropriety if desirable to maintain status quo until conclusion of action: Talika Invs. Ltd. v. Olec Properties Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 1990 JLR 200
defamation
election candidate—court to balance right of public to know all facts about election candidates against importance of fair election—freedom of speech so important that no injunction if defendant has honest belief in truth of allegations: Le Main v. Eves (No. 2) (Royal Ct.), 1999 JLR N–10
no interim injunction to restrain repetition of alleged defamation if defendant pleads justification, unless clear that defence will fail at trial: Horsfall v. Philip Sinel & Co. (Royal Ct.), 1997 JLR 41
defendant’s legitimate expenses
court’s willingness to grant defendant living expenses out of frozen assets depends on whether claim personal or proprietary—if personal and defendant has other assets abroad, may be appropriate to require provision of security over those assets before allowing drawing on frozen assets: Whitesmith v. Papyrus Invs. Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2003 JLR N [37]

Interlocutory injunction cont.
defendant’s legitimate expenses cont.
may be unjust to allow defendant living expenses and legal costs from enjoined funds, e.g. if plaintiff claims to be owner of money rather than mere creditor—court to balance danger of plaintiff’s paying costs of defence as well as own costs against possible injustice to defendant—not unjust to refuse expenses to fraudulent defendant on legal aid, where plaintiff’s claim likely to succeed: Barclays Bank PLC v. Thorpe (Royal Ct.), 1995 JLR 184
plaintiff challenging provision for defendant’s legitimate expenses on ground injunction not Mareva but based on proprietary claim to provide sufficient evidence of nature of debt—court may apply balance of convenience test: Wilkins v. Headrick (Royal Ct.), 1996 JLR N–14
principles applicable where plaintiff makes proprietary claim: Armco Inc. v. Donohue (C.A.), 1998 JLR N–12
discharge
affidavit required for application to raise—oral evidence alone insufficient: De Guelle’s Home Bakery Ltd. v. Le Nosh Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 1990 JLR N–16
affidavit required for application to raise, even though defendant present in court and able to give evidence: Drelaud v. Humble (Royal Ct.), 1990 JLR N–16
court entitled to discharge interlocutory ex parte injunction granted without full and frank disclosure or compliance with other rules—power to discharge not limited to Mareva injunction: Talika Invs. Ltd. v. Olec Properties Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 1990 JLR 200
court may raise interim injunction operating automatically by virtue of order of justice against funds held in Island, if parties non-resident, no submission to jurisdiction and no proprietary interest claimed in funds by plaintiff: Middle East Engr. Ltd. v. Edwards (Royal Ct.), 1980 J.J. 265
court’s power to impose new injunction—upon discharge for non-disclosure of material facts at original application, court has inherent jurisdiction to re-impose new injunction in identical terms: Walters v. Bingham (Royal Ct.), 1985–86 JLR 439
court’s power to impose new injunction—upon discharge of injunction for non-disclosure of material facts on original application, court has inherent jurisdiction to re-impose new injunction in identical terms—no new injunction if would not originally have been granted if all material facts disclosed: Wood v. Establishment Cttee. (Royal Ct.), 1989 JLR 213
failure to “table” action in time results in discontinuance of action and any injunctions contained in order of justice cease: Virani v. Virani (Royal Ct.), 2000 JLR 203
immediate discharge available to party showing substantial non-disclosure, since award of damages after trial otherwise unfair: De Guelle’s Home Bakery Ltd. v. Le Nosh Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 1990 JLR N–16
injunction not necessarily wrongful if claim on which based fails—discharge not necessarily appropriate: Hughes v. Clewley (Royal Ct.), 1996 JLR 24
may be discharged if plaintiff agrees not to enforce orders obtained: Wilkins v. Headrick (Royal Ct.), 2000 JLR N–53
no raising of interlocutory injunction if beneficiary demonstrates serious question to be tried; damages at trial stage inadequate remedy; and balance of convenience, i.e. hardship and uncompensatable damage suffered if injunction raised, in his favour: Alpha Print v. Alphagraphics (Royal Ct.), 1989 JLR 152
not discharged if beneficiary demonstrates serious question to be tried, damages at trial stage inadequate remedy and balance of convenience in his favour, i.e. hardship and uncompensatable damage suffered if injunction raised: R.A. Rossborough (Ins. Brokers) Ltd. v. Boon (Royal Ct.), 2001 JLR 416
discretion of court
Bailiff and Deputy Bailiff, on signing order of justice, have absolute discretion whether or not to grant immediate interim injunction and conditions on which granted—desirable that practice regulated by rules of court or practice direction of Superior Number: Walters v. Bingham (Royal Ct.), 1985–86 JLR 439

Interlocutory injunction cont.
discretion of court cont.
Royal Court has discretion to grant mandatory injunction in interlocutory application—exercised only in unusually strong, clear cases if assured trial court will affirm decision: Union of Communication Workers v. Le Maistre (Royal Ct.), 1992 JLR N–8
duration of validity
no lapse of injunctions in order of justice once action served and tabled—otherwise, order of justice valid for one year from date of issue unless renewed: Barker v. Barker (Royal Ct.), 1998 JLR N–5
enquiry into damages
on setting aside ex parte order irregularly obtained, e.g. through non-disclosure, court may order enquiry into damages—if damages claimed after trial, court to consider (a) whether outcome of trial justifies making of interlocutory order; and (b) if not, whether damages nevertheless inappropriate: Hughes v. Clewley (C.A.), 1997 JLR N–11
finality of interlocutory injunction
although desirable to avoid double trial of same issues at interlocutory and full trial stages, interlocutory decision only decisive of dispute if accepted by both parties: Alpha Print v. Alphagraphics (Royal Ct.), 1989 JLR 152
form
clear and unambiguous language to be used—addressee should not need to cross-refer to other material to ascertain obligation under it: Matthews (née Jasper) v. Matthews (C.A.), 2001 JLR 671
guidelines for ex parte injunction
based on guidelines for Mareva injunction, especially (a) full and frank disclosure of material facts; (b) statement of claim and possible defence; (c) undertaking as to damages: Talika Invs. Ltd. v. Olec Properties Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 1990 JLR 200
ex parte applicant to make full and frank disclosure whether litigant in person or professionally represented litigant—court may be more understanding of breach by litigant in person—if breach by professionally represented litigant, may discharge injunction as matter of policy to emphasize importance of duty: Syvret v. Benest (Royal Ct.), 2010 JLR N [48]
must demonstrate serious risk of injustice to applicant if application made inter partes and give cross-undertaking in damages: Milner v. Milner Labs. Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2000 JLR 266
guidelines to be observed
court may grant interlocutory injunction restraining enforcement by public authority of legislation which infringes EC law pending reference to European Court—factors to be considered: adequacy of damages; balance of convenience; public interest in upholding law; strong prima facie case that law invalid: Jersey Produce Mktg. Org. Ltd. v. States (Royal Ct.), 2002 JLR N [32]
discretionary, with no fixed rules—court not to determine complex issues of fact or law—factors to be considered: adequacy of damages; balance of convenience; maintenance of status quo; relative strengths of parties’ cases: T.A. Picot (C.I.) Ltd. v. Creative Window & Conservatory Co. Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 1997 JLR N–12
funds subject to injunction in matrimonial proceedings may be used to pay liabilities and expenses if appropriate in circumstances of case: P v. P (Royal Ct.), 2002 JLR N [18]
granted if serious question to be tried; damages at trial inadequate remedy for plaintiff; and balance of convenience, i.e. uncompensatable damage suffered, if no injunction granted: Play Ltd. v. Legato Assets Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2006 JLR 94
granted where serious question to be tried; damages at trial inadequate remedy; and balance of convenience, i.e. uncompensatable damage suffered, if no injunction granted: Milner v. Milner Labs. Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2000 JLR 266
granted where substantial question to be investigated and desirable that status quo preserved until question finally decided—balance of convenience to parties must favour injunction: Cerqueira v. Bilbao Intl. Bank (Jersey) Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 1981 J.J. 141

Interlocutory injunction cont.
guidelines to be observed cont.
if court has jurisdiction to restrain dealings with fund pending appeal, must also be satisfied (a) applicant comes with clean hands; (b) merits of case are strong, i.e. there is serious question to answer; and (c) balance of convenience lies in favour of applicant: In re Barker (Royal Ct.), 1987–88 JLR 4
injunction freezing assets in matrimonial proceedings may be granted if arguable case and real risk of non-preservation pending determination of issues—injunction to be proportional to object: Matthews (née Jasper) v. Matthews (C.A.), 2001 JLR 671
inclusion in order of justice. See CIVIL PROCEDURE (Order of justice)
jurisdiction of Judicial Greffier
no jurisdiction to confirm interim injunction: Showlag v. Mansour (Royal Ct.), 1991 JLR N–10
mandatory injunction. See Mandatory injunction
misrepresentation and non-disclosure
court’s power to impose new injunction—upon discharge of injunction for non-disclosure of material facts on original application, court has inherent jurisdiction to re-impose new injunction in identical terms—no new injunction if would not originally have been granted if all material facts disclosed: Wood v. Establishment Cttee. (Royal Ct.), 1989 JLR 213
duty of full and frank disclosure continues after injunction obtained—failure to inform court of substantial and relevant change in circumstances justifies discharge: Wilkins v. Headrick (Royal Ct.), 2000 JLR N–53
duty to make full and frank disclosure on application for ex parte injunction requires disclosure of any opposing matters and any defences—high standards required—plaintiff specifically to draw to court’s attention possible argument that injunction too wide: Play Ltd. v. Legato Assets Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2006 JLR 94
failure to make full and frank disclosure on application for ex parte injunction may be remedied by disclosure at inter partes hearing—court may continue or discharge injunction—discretion to continue to be sparingly exercised despite risk of dissipating assets: 1900 Trustee Co. Ltd. v. Nürnberg Co. Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 1998 JLR N–13
full and frank disclosure required of facts known to be material and material facts which could be discovered with proper enquiries—court to determine materiality—extent of proper enquiries depends on facts of case: 1900 Trustee Co. Ltd. v. Nürnberg Co. Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 1998 JLR N–13
full and frank disclosure to court required in application for ex parte injunction—shortage of time no justification for failure to make disclosure: Wood v. Establishment Cttee. (Royal Ct.), 1989 JLR 213
innocent party to illegal contract not necessarily precluded from obtaining interim injunction preventing dealing with subject-matter merely because fails to disclose illegal consideration provided by other party: Hughes v. Clewley (Royal Ct.), 1996 JLR 24
non-disclosure if applicant obtains injunction without disclosing facts known to him or which would have been known had proper inquiries been made—party subject to injunction entitled to immediate discharge when non-disclosure revealed rather than waiting for damages after trial: De Guelle’s Home Bakery Ltd. v. Le Nosh Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 1990 JLR N–16
peremptory lifting of injunction granted if original application deceived judge by material misrepresentation or non-disclosure and would not have granted it if truth known: Johnson Matthey Bankers Ltd. v. Arya Holdings Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 1985–86 JLR 208
peremptory lifting of injunction if original application deceived court by material misrepresentation or non-disclosure and would not have been granted if truth known—mere failure to provide affidavit with application not material non-disclosure except in case of Mareva injunction or application to lift interlocutory injunction: Walters v. Bingham (Royal Ct.), 1985–86 JLR 439

Interlocutory injunction cont.
preservation of subject of proprietary action
court’s willingness to grant defendant living expenses out of frozen assets depends on whether claim personal or proprietary—if personal and defendant has other assets abroad, may be appropriate to require provision of security over those assets before allowing drawing on frozen assets: Whitesmith v. Papyrus Invs. Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2003 JLR N [37]
funds subject to injunction in matrimonial proceedings may be used to pay liabilities and expenses if appropriate in circumstances of case: P v. P (Royal Ct.), 2002 JLR N [18]
inherent jurisdiction in matrimonial proceedings to grant injunction preserving subject-matter of proprietary action pending determination of issues—distinct from Mareva injunction: Matthews (née Jasper) v. Matthews (C.A.), 2001 JLR 671
injunction freezing assets in matrimonial proceedings may be granted if arguable case and real risk of non-preservation pending determination of issues—injunction to be proportional to object: Matthews (née Jasper) v. Matthews (C.A.), 2001 JLR 671
injunction may be used to prevent disposition of assets of company beneficially owned and controlled by respondent—company may use injuncted assets to pay reasonable expenses in certain circumstances: P v. P (Royal Ct.), 2002 JLR N [18]
provisional orders. See Provisional orders
public authorities
court may grant interlocutory injunction restraining enforcement by public authority of legislation which infringes EC law pending reference to European Court—factors to be considered: adequacy of damages; balance of convenience; public interest in upholding law; strong prima facie case that law invalid: Jersey Produce Mktg. Org. Ltd. v. States (Royal Ct.), 2002 JLR N [32]
undertaking in damages
court has discretion to enforce undertaking in damages if injunction discharged and enjoined party suffers damage through compliance: Hughes v. Clewley (Royal Ct.), 1996 JLR 24
normal to require undertaking from party seeking interim injunction but if not given, may not imply ex post facto since undertaking to be given voluntarily: Hughes v. Clewley (Royal Ct.), 1996 JLR 24
unfair prejudice. See COMPANIES (Minority shareholders)
Locus standi of applicant
beneficiary under foreign law
person entitled by foreign domiciliary law to share in deceased’s estate has locus standi to seek interim injunction concerning deceased’s Jersey assets before grant of letters of administration: Cerqueira v. Bilbao Intl. Bank (Jersey) Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 1981 J.J. 141
Mandatory injunction
Anton Piller order. See Anton Piller order
interim abatement of nuisance
court may require defendant to take specified steps to reduce scope of nuisance and bring to acceptable level within stated period after which court to review question further: Magyar v. Jersey Strawberry Nurseries Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 1982 J.J. 147
injunction may be refused if credible assurance that nuisance to be controlled in future: du Feu v. Granite Prods. Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 1973 J.J. 2441
interlocutory application
interlocutory mandatory injunction rarely granted, especially if to have extra-territorial effect and solely in aid of foreign proceedings—court to be sure that, if granted, foreign court will find injunction properly issued: Sterritt Properties Inc. v. Roker Trustees (Jersey) Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 1997 JLR N–12
only granted in exceptional circumstances—removal of windows and doors in winter from home where children and lodgers living is exceptional circumstance justifying order for re-installation: Keenan v. Timber Tech Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 1999 JLR N–6
only granted in unusually strong, clear case—very high burden on applicant—ex parte interim mandatory injunction granted requiring nominee shareholder to execute share transfer requested by beneficiary: In re Publicis Graphics Group Holdings SA (Royal Ct.), 2011 JLR N [18]

Mandatory injunction cont.
interlocutory application cont.
Royal Court has discretion to grant mandatory injunction in interlocutory application—exercised only in unusually strong, clear cases if assured trial court will affirm decision: Union of Communication Workers v. Le Maistre (Royal Ct.), 1992 JLR N–8
very high burden on party seeking interlocutory mandatory injunction: Jersey Produce Mktg. Org. Ltd. v. Hi-Ho Growers Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2001 JLR 266
withdrawal of application. See CIVIL PROCEDURE (Costs)
Mareva injunction
affidavit of means and liabilities
Royal Court has inherent jurisdiction to order cross-examination of party on contents of affidavit if fails to make full and frank disclosure of assets and liabilities required by order ancillary to Mareva injunction—court to be slow to make order: Mayo Associates S.A. v. Anagram (Bermuda) Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 1994 JLR N–10
ancillary disclosure order
may be made against party not subject to freezing order, to police freezing order against another: Dalemont Ltd. v. Senatorov (Royal Ct.), 2012 (1) JLR 168
to assist post-judgment creditor to enforce foreign judgment, Jersey court may order worldwide disclosure of non-resident judgment debtor’s assets in appropriate case—e.g. if Russian judgment debtor allegedly transferred assets to Jersey foundation to avoid enforcement of Russian judgments—debtor properly before court as party to claim against Jersey foundation—firm jurisdictional basis for worldwide disclosure orders in post-judgment cases—Jersey financial services industry not to be used by judgment debtors to avoid enforcement: Dalemont Ltd. v. Senatorov (Royal Ct.), 2012 (1) JLR 108
worldwide disclosure of debtor’s assets ordered if debt outstanding for several years and initial inadequate disclosure—post-judgment creditor to have all information to enforce judgment anywhere in world, even if no worldwide freezing order—often appropriate to order worldwide disclosure against Jersey debtor, as court has in personam jurisdiction: Africa Edge S.a.r.l. v. Incat Equipment Rental Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2008 JLR N [41]
worldwide disclosure order accompanying freezing order normally remains in force as long as freezing order but may be stayed pending challenge to it or to freezing order—worldwide disclosure order against judgment debtor and associated entities not stayed pending challenge if, on facts of case, particularly important to police freezing order; suspicion procedural tactics being used to frustrate judgment creditor; and prejudice to defendants if make disclosure before successful appeal less than prejudice to judgment creditor if assets dissipated pending appeal: Dalemont Ltd. v. Senatorov (Royal Ct.), 2012 (1) JLR 168
caveat preventing sale of land. See LAND LAW (Sale of land—caveat preventing sale)
court’s discretion to grant injunction
Mareva injunction will be discharged if appears that guidelines as to information to be provided to court on original issue of injunction not followed—information necessary for proper exercise of court’s discretion: Trasco Intl. A.G. v. R.M. Mktg. Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 1985–86 JLR N–15
defendant’s legitimate expenses
normal to swear affidavit as to amounts of and reasons for proposed payments of legitimate expenses allowed under Mareva injunction—court normally to set upper limit rather than query individual items: Baptiste Builders’ Supply Ltd. v. Smith (Royal Ct.), 1995 JLR N–16
plaintiff challenging provision for defendant’s legitimate expenses on ground injunction not Mareva but based on proprietary claim to provide sufficient evidence of nature of debt—court may apply balance of convenience test: Wilkins v. Headrick (Royal Ct.), 1996 JLR N–14
principles applicable where plaintiff makes proprietary claim: Armco Inc. v. Donohue (C.A.), 1998 JLR N–12
United Capital Corp. Ltd. v. Bender (Royal Ct.), 2007 JLR N [10]

Mareva injunction cont.
defendant’s legitimate expenses cont.
unless known that other funds available, Mareva injunction to include proper provision for defendant’s living expenses: Mayo Associates S.A. v. Anagram (Bermuda) Ltd. (C.A.), 1995 JLR 190
discharge
breach of implied undertaking only to use information obtained under Anton Piller order for purposes of litigation not necessarily serious enough to warrant discharge of associated Mareva injunction: Mayo Associates S.A. v. Anagram (Bermuda) Ltd. (C.A.), 1995 JLR 190
court may discharge injunction for failure to make full disclosure on ex parte application even if order would have been made with full disclosure: Goldtron Ltd. v. Most Invs. Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2002 JLR 424
court’s power to re-impose injunction on grounds of non-disclosure—to consider that (a) discharge deprived applicant of advantage improperly obtained and encouraged full disclosure; (b) injunctions not routinely re-imposed; (c) re-imposition inappropriate in case of serious non-disclosure; and (d) innocent non-disclosure not decisive consideration: Goldtron Ltd. v. Most Invs. Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2002 JLR 424
discharge if no evidence assets likely to be dissipated—ex parte application for injunction unnecessary if no injustice caused by wait for inter partes hearing: Matthews (née Jasper) v. Matthews (Royal Ct.), 2001 JLR 334
discharge of ex parte injunction for applicant’s failure to make full and frank disclosure of material facts is serious sanction and facts of case to be considered carefully: United Capital Corp. Ltd. v. Bender (Royal Ct.), 2006 JLR N [7]
failure to “table” action in time results in discontinuance of action and any injunctions contained in order of justice cease: Virani v. Virani (Royal Ct.), 2000 JLR 203
immediate discharge of Mareva injunction justified by plaintiffs’ failure to explain serious abuse of associated Anton Piller order (e.g. placing surveillance equipment in defendant’s offices), since is failure in duty of candour to court—discharge justified even though risks removal of assets from jurisdiction: Mayo Associates S.A. v. Anagram (Bermuda) Ltd. (C.A.), 1995 JLR 190
plaintiff to anticipate prompt application to discharge Mareva injunction and be ready to respond—unacceptable to apply for adjournment of agreed hearing date on ground that complex affidavit filed by defendant: Goldtron Ltd. v. Most Invs. Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2002 JLR 424
discovery of assets
appropriate to make orders effectively requiring discovery of documents at early stage of proceedings if necessary for “policing” of Mareva injunction: Johnson Matthey Bankers Ltd. v. Arya Holdings Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 1985–86 JLR 208
court may order discovery of assets where would aid enforcement of injunction—discovery not merely to be for extraneous commercial benefit of applicant: A.C. Mauger & Son (Sunwin) Ltd. v. Victor Hugo Management Ltd. (C.A.), 1990 JLR N–16
no need for disclosure orders to help judgment creditor obtain payment to be auxiliary to Mareva injunction: Apricus Invs. v. CIS Emerging Growth Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2003 JLR N [40]
up-dated disclosure—less likely to be granted if no evidence of breach and plaintiff seeking simply to determine whether defendant complying with injunction: Armco Inc. v. Wingfield Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 1999 JLR N–11
failure to comply
£1,000 fine or ten days’ imprisonment in default appropriate for failure to comply with disclosure requirements of Mareva injunction by person earning more than £100,000 per annum, in proceedings for recovery of £26m.: Mayo Associates S.A. v. Anagram (Bermuda) Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 1995 JLR N–15

Mareva injunction cont.
failure to comply cont.
alleged failure by educated and intelligent person to understand terms of Mareva, when legally advised and reminded of obligations, and inconvenience of complying, not excuses for breach—breach is serious contempt of court: Mayo Associates S.A. v. Anagram (Bermuda) Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 1995 JLR N–15
inadvertent transfer out of jurisdiction by financial institution holding enjoined funds may be excused by return of funds, apology and explanation of breach—court to be informed of any breach—defendant’s breach risks judgment against him: State of Qatar v. Al Thani (Royal Ct.), 1996 JLR N–13
guidelines to be observed
applicant must satisfy guidelines as to information to be provided to court when Mareva injunction originally sought—failure to do so cannot be remedied by subsequent disclosures when other party later seeks discharge of injunction: Trasco Intl. A.G. v. R.M. Mktg. Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 1985–86 JLR N–15
applicant to disclose material information with complete candour when seeking Mareva injunction—failure may be remedied by subsequent affidavit: Numbers 12 & 13 Britannia Place v. J. & G. Property (Royal Ct.), 1989 JLR 34
court will grant Mareva injunction if (a) full and frank disclosure of material facts; (b) statement of claim and possible defence; (c) grounds for believing assets within jurisdiction; (d) grounds for believing risk of assets being removed before judgment; and (e) undertaking as to damages: Johnson Matthey Bankers Ltd. v. Arya Holdings Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 1985–86 JLR 208
cross-undertaking in damages not required where order of justice makes sufficient alternative provision: Matthews (née Jasper) v. Matthews (Royal Ct.), 2001 JLR 334
duty on party obtaining Mareva injunction or Anton Piller order to inform court rapidly of material developments—not abuse to fail to inform of amendment to plead new cause of action if not relevant to injunctions: Mayo Associates S.A. v. Anagram (Bermuda) Ltd. (C.A.), 1995 JLR 190
evidence required assets likely to be dissipated—in ex parte application to demonstrate injustice would be caused by wait for inter partes hearing: Matthews (née Jasper) v. Matthews (Royal Ct.), 2001 JLR 334
ex parte application—advocate to prepare note of content of ex parte hearing and provide to defendants immediately if requested: United Capital Corp. Ltd. v. Bender (Royal Ct.), 2006 JLR N [7]
not to be used as trap by plaintiff to secure priority in claim to assets which defendant unlikely to dissipate: Numbers 12 & 13 Britannia Place v. J. & G. Property (Royal Ct.), 1989 JLR 34
misrepresentation and non-disclosure
ex parte applicant to make full and frank disclosure of known potential defences to order sought and insufficient that only discoverable within voluminous exhibits—no defence for plaintiff to state that unaware of importance of undisclosed matters—may discharge injunction even if order would have been made with full disclosure: Goldtron Ltd. v. Most Invs. Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2002 JLR 424
ex parte applicant to make full and frank disclosure of material facts—setting aside injunction for failure is serious sanction and facts of case to be considered: United Capital Corp. Ltd. v. Bender (Royal Ct.), 2006 JLR N [7]
innocent non-disclosure—discharge of injunction less likely if plaintiff had genuinely forgotten information—important to rectify omissions at inter partes stage—discretion to maintain order to be exercised sparingly: Armco Inc. v. Wingfield Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 1999 JLR N–11
re-imposition of injunction on grounds of non-disclosure—to consider that (a) discharge deprived applicant of advantage improperly obtained and encouraged full disclosure; (b) injunctions not routinely re-imposed; (c) re-imposition inappropriate in case of serious non-disclosure; and (d) innocent non-disclosure not decisive consideration: Goldtron Ltd. v. Most Invs. Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2002 JLR 424

Mareva injunction cont.
pre- and post-judgment injunctions
standard of proof for obtaining post-judgment Mareva injunction lower than pre-judgment—applicable in cases involving arbitration awards as treated as equivalent to judgments under Arbitration (Jersey) Law 1998, art. 30: Goldtron Ltd. v. Most Invs. Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2002 JLR 424
to assist post-judgment creditor to enforce foreign judgment, Jersey court may order worldwide disclosure of non-resident judgment debtor’s assets in appropriate case—e.g. if Russian judgment debtor allegedly transferred assets to Jersey foundation to avoid enforcement of Russian judgments—debtor properly before court as party to claim against Jersey foundation—firm jurisdictional basis for worldwide disclosure orders in post-judgment cases—Jersey financial services industry not to be used by judgment debtors to avoid enforcement: Dalemont Ltd. v. Senatorov (Royal Ct.), 2012 (1) JLR 108
whether or not post-judgment freezing order, may make worldwide disclosure order so creditor can enforce judgment anywhere in world: Africa Edge S.a.r.l. v. Incat Equipment Rental Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2008 JLR N [41]
pre-existing obligations
may not interfere with pre-existing contractual relationships or investment decisions giving rise to legal obligations: Perczynski (née La Rocque) v. Perczynski (Royal Ct.), 2001 JLR N [26]
risk of dissipation
not necessary for applicant to show real risk of dissipation of assets on application for further relief since risk established when original order made and original order not challenged—court may accept real risk of dissipation of assets after award if no evidence about financial position of defendant and no offer of security for award: Apricus Invs. v. CIS Emerging Growth Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2003 JLR N [40]
security for costs
security for costs of third party proceedings may be ordered if third party joined by defendant—security for costs of defendant’s foreign Mareva injunction against third party not to be ordered: Memon v. Bank of Scotland (Jersey) Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 1999 JLR N–3
tracing action
if plaintiff brings proprietary claim for less than sum of defendant’s assets, injunction may nevertheless cover all assets until clear into which can trace: United Capital Corp. Ltd. v. Bender (Royal Ct.), 2006 JLR N [7]
trust assets
may be frozen if claim against settlor or beneficiary and unknown whether assets attributable to alleged debtor: Africa Edge S.a.r.l. v. Incat Equipment Rental Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2008 JLR N [41]
use for foreign proceedings
court to ensure appropriate to assume jurisdiction over foreign defendant when considering whether to order service of Mareva injunction out of jurisdiction—risk of dissipation of funds sought to be enjoined in Jersey may be sufficient reason: Krohn G.m.b.H. v. Varna Shipyard (Royal Ct.), 1997 JLR 194
Jersey court may grant Mareva injunction in aid of foreign proceedings even if only proceedings in Jersey are for injunction itself: Solvalub Ltd. v. Match Invs. Ltd. (C.A.), 1996 JLR 361
Krohn G.m.b.H. v. Varna Shipyard (Royal Ct.), 1997 JLR 152
State of Qatar v. Al Thani (Royal Ct.), 1999 JLR 118
may order service on defendant out of jurisdiction under Service of Process (Jersey) Rules 1994, r.7(b) even if only Mareva injunction sought in Jersey in aid of foreign proceedings: Krohn G.m.b.H. v. Varna Shipyard (Royal Ct.), 1997 JLR 194
State of Qatar v. Al Thani (Royal Ct.), 1999 JLR 118
Royal Court to consider amending Rules to allow service out of jurisdiction in aid of foreign proceedings when only issue in Jersey is grant of Mareva injunction in support: Solvalub Ltd. v. Match Invs. Ltd. (C.A.), 1996 JLR 361

Mareva injunction cont.
use in arbitration proceedings
injunction in support of matrimonial proceedings—distinct from Mareva injunction and injunction in support of proprietary claim—funds subject to injunction in matrimonial proceedings may be used to pay liabilities and expenses if appropriate in circumstances of case: P v. P (Royal Ct.), 2002 JLR N [18]
lower threshold for obtaining post-judgment Mareva injunction applicable in cases involving arbitration awards—award treated as equivalent to judgment under Arbitration (Jersey) Law 1998, art. 30: Goldtron Ltd. v. Most Invs. Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2002 JLR 424
Mareva injunction available to support enforcement of arbitration awards—no need to show additional post-award risk of dissipation since risk already established when original order made—if necessary may presume risk after award if no evidence about financial position of defendant and no offer of security for award: Apricus Invs. v. CIS Emerging Growth Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2003 JLR N [40]
use in family proceedings
inherent jurisdiction to grant Mareva injunction to prevent dissipation of assets before division by court: Matthews (née Jasper) v. Matthews (Royal Ct.), 2001 JLR 334
use of information obtained
relaxation of implied undertaking not to use documents obtained for collateral purpose only in special circumstances and if causes no injustice to party making discovery: Armco Inc. v. Donohue (Royal Ct.), 1999 JLR N–11
variation
burden on defendant to show variation to make allowance for legitimate expenses not in conflict with purpose of Mareva injunction—normal to swear affidavit as to amounts of and reasons for proposed expenses payments: Baptiste Builders’ Supply Ltd. v. Smith (Royal Ct.), 1995 JLR N–16
court will vary injunction to allow trust assets subject to it to be used to fulfil pre-existing contractual obligation or investment decision: Perczynski (née La Rocque) v. Perczynski (Royal Ct.), 2001 JLR N [26]
full disclosure of assets may be necessary to show no free assets to implement transactions proposed in variation—not obligatory and not required if bona fides of defendant not in question—disclosure ordinarily limited to assets covered by injunction: A.C. Mauger & Son Ltd. v. Victor Hugo Management Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 1989 JLR 295
heavy burden on party seeking variation—full affidavits needed even if application inter partes: A.C. Mauger & Son Ltd. v. Victor Hugo Management Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 1989 JLR 295
variation allowed to enable payment of ordinary trading debts or carrying out of ordinary trading obligations if proposed transactions not designed solely to reduce assets: A.C. Mauger & Son Ltd. v. Victor Hugo Management Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 1989 JLR 295
variation less appropriate if plaintiff is judgment creditor with means of pursuing debt against defendant—where variation for defendant’s legal costs in overturning judgment, court more likely to allow if judgment by default than if final—merits of application to set aside to be considered, but not in detail: Baptiste Builders’ Supply Ltd. v. Smith (Royal Ct.), 1995 JLR N–16
worldwide injunction
drastic order—only granted ex parte if essential: Africa Edge S.a.r.l. v. Incat Equipment Rental Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2008 JLR N [41]
whether or not post-judgment worldwide freezing order, may make worldwide disclosure order so creditor can enforce judgment anywhere in world: Africa Edge S.a.r.l. v. Incat Equipment Rental Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2008 JLR N [41]
Parallel proceedings. See CIVIL PROCEDURE (Stay of proceedings)

Prohibition on dealing with ships. See SHIPPING (Prohibition on dealing)
Prohibitory injunction
gagging order
order justified only by convincing evidence—affidavit in support of application to explain why specific order required and justified—insufficient merely to include as part of a prayer for interim relief: Goldtron Ltd. v. Most Invs. Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2002 JLR 424
Provisional orders
affidavit
may be appropriate to require affidavit in support of application for ordre provisoire, even though not specific requirement of Jersey law: T.S. Engr. Ltd. v. Bisson (Royal Ct.), 1995 JLR 1
arrêt entre mains
to satisfy debt due by defendant, plaintiff may, by provisional order, restrain defendant’s assets in hands of third parties—court has discretion to confirm order—similar to garnishee or third party debt orders: FG Hemisphere Assocs. LLC v. Congo (Dem. Rep.) (C.A.), 2010 JLR N [15]
basis for order
may be issued on basis of pièce signée but unclear whether countermanded cheque included—if stopped cheque not pièce signée, action for payment commenced by ordre provisoire to be struck out as abuse of process of court: Bowen v. Noel Invs. Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 1990 JLR 184
ordering or lifting interim distraint on goods to be supported by affidavit unless action based on pièce signée—no pièce signée if cheque stopped and action brought on original debt, because countermanded cheque not admission of debt: Field Aircraft Servs. (Exeter) Ltd. v. Kenton Utils. & Devs. Ltd. (C.A.), 1987–88 JLR 78
disclosure of material facts
full disclosure of all material facts required of creditor seeking provisional order under Loi (1862) sur les Saisies en vertu d’Ordres Provisoires—on application by debtor, order obtained without full disclosure may be discharged, resulting in his release: Royale Freight (C.I.) Ltd. v. Gladwin (Royal Ct.), 1994 JLR N–1
factors to be considered
matters relevant to grant of ordre provisoire, e.g. whether debt contested, likelihood of debtor’s leaving jurisdiction, whether proceedings should have been brought by order of justice: T.S. Engr. Ltd. v. Bisson (Royal Ct.), 1995 JLR 1
livelihood of debtor
not appropriate to order distraint on equipment that is debtor’s only means of earning living if other ways to satisfy debt—may be appropriate merely to require undertaking from debtor that will not dispose of property or leave jurisdiction: T.S. Engr. Ltd. v. Bisson (Royal Ct.), 1995 JLR 1
Public authorities. See Interlocutory injunction
Quia timet action
declaration and liberty to apply
if repetition of act unlikely, court has discretion to withhold injunction and instead make declaration of right threatened with liberty to apply for injunction if necessary: Corby v. Le Main (Royal Ct.), 1982 J.J. 157
Raising injunction
abandoning of benefit by applicant
court has discretion to allow applicant to abandon benefit of injunction already granted—if injunction raison d’être of action, whole action may be withdrawn and discontinued under Royal Court Rules 1982, r.6/24: Baron Everlo v. Fitel Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 1987–88 JLR 687
interlocutory injunction. See Interlocutory injunction
variation
duty of plaintiff who realizes has obtained wider injunction than necessary to seek variation to narrow, rather than leave defendant to challenge: Virani v. Virani (Royal Ct.), 2000 JLR 203

Restraint of foreign proceedings. See CIVIL PROCEDURE (Discovery—foreign discovery procedure)
Stay of proceedings. See CIVIL PROCEDURE (Stay of proceedings)
Undertaking in damages. See Interlocutory injunction
Worldwide disclosure order. See Mareva injunction—worldwide injunction
Worldwide freezing injunction. See Mareva injunction—worldwide injunction
Page last updated 19 Feb 2014