This relief may be considered where there is strong evidence that:

• The claimant has a strong apparent case;

• The defendant has assets within the court’s jurisdiction;

• There is a real risk that assets will be removed, concealed, transferred, or dissipated to frustrate judgment;

• Damages alone would not adequately address the immediate risk; and

• The balance of convenience favours preserving the assets.

A debtor’s financial difficulty or refusal to pay is not, by itself, sufficient. The evidence must demonstrate a genuine risk of improper dissipation rather than ordinary business activity or legitimate use of assets.

Mareva applications are sometimes brought without advance notice where notice would create the very risk the order is intended to prevent. A party seeking relief without notice must provide full and frank disclosure of all material facts, including facts that may assist the responding party. The applicant will ordinarily be required to give an undertaking to compensate the defendant for damages caused by the order if the injunction should not have been granted.

An order may include asset disclosure requirements, limits on transfers, ordinary-living or business-expense exceptions, and directions to financial institutions or third parties. The terms must be precise and proportionate.

A defendant or affected third party may seek to vary or set aside the order, increase permitted expenses, exclude assets not beneficially owned by the defendant, challenge the adequacy of the evidence, or enforce the applicant’s undertaking.