What must the applicant prove to obtain a Mareva order?

What must the applicant prove to obtain a Mareva order?

• A. Irrefutable proof of asset ownership
• B. A real risk that assets will be dissipated to defeat a judgment
• C. Intent to hide assets from the court
• D. Prior agreements among the parties regarding asset management

Answer: (B)

To obtain a Mareva order, the applicant must demonstrate a real risk that assets will be dissipated to defeat a judgment. This requirement is crucial because Mareva orders, also known as freezing orders, are issued by courts to prevent a defendant from disposing of or hiding their assets pending the resolution of a legal proceeding. Proving a real risk involves showing sufficient evidence that, without the order, there is a likelihood that the defendant may act to make their assets unavailable, thereby frustrating any future judgment that may be made against them. This safeguard is intended to protect the integrity of the judicial process and ensure that any judgment in favor of the applicant can be enforced. In contrast, irrefutable proof of asset ownership is not a necessity for a Mareva order. The focus is on the risk of dissipation rather than the verification of ownership itself. Similarly, intent to hide assets, while relevant, must be substantiated by evidence of an actionable risk rather than mere suspicion. Finally, prior agreements among the parties regarding asset management do not serve as a basis for a Mareva order, as the primary concern lies in preventing potential asset loss rather than enforcing any existing agreements.

To obtain a Mareva order, the applicant must demonstrate a real risk that assets will be dissipated to defeat a judgment. This requirement is crucial because Mareva orders, also known as freezing orders, are issued by courts to prevent a defendant from disposing of or hiding their assets pending the resolution of a legal proceeding.

Proving a real risk involves showing sufficient evidence that, without the order, there is a likelihood that the defendant may act to make their assets unavailable, thereby frustrating any future judgment that may be made against them. This safeguard is intended to protect the integrity of the judicial process and ensure that any judgment in favor of the applicant can be enforced.

In contrast, irrefutable proof of asset ownership is not a necessity for a Mareva order. The focus is on the risk of dissipation rather than the verification of ownership itself. Similarly, intent to hide assets, while relevant, must be substantiated by evidence of an actionable risk rather than mere suspicion. Finally, prior agreements among the parties regarding asset management do not serve as a basis for a Mareva order, as the primary concern lies in preventing potential asset loss rather than enforcing any existing agreements.