Ahmed Dharsi LLP successfully defended a client against an aggressive attempt to extend a Mareva injunction despite the client having admitted to both a fraudulent conveyance and the falsification of a promissory note.

The plaintiff sought to freeze the client’s assets before trial, equating to a form of pre-judgment execution. We challenged the motion as procedurally and substantively flawed. The court agreed, finding that the plaintiff failed to meet the high threshold of full and frank disclosure required for such extraordinary relief. The motion was dismissed in full.

Despite serious admissions by the client, we not only resisted the injunction but avoided a costs order, a rare and strategic outcome in the circumstances.

Significance

This case underscores that even in the face of adverse facts, precise legal positioning and a disciplined evidentiary strategy can prevail. It reaffirms the court’s insistence on procedural fairness and evidentiary rigor when granting pre-judgment remedies like Mareva injunctions.