Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
22 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
Dowley v O'Brien |
Mareva Injunctions will not prevent a bank from exercising a bona fide right of set off - does not move plaintiff to the front of the queue of creditora |
|
Serge Caudron v Air Zaire |
Older principle: not a cause of action - there must be a primary legal action in Ireland |
|
Jurisdiction of Courts and Enforcement of Judgments (European Communities) Act 1998 S.13(1) |
Legislation providing for the possibility of obtaining a Mareva injunction where the primary legal action is in another contracting country |
|
Fleming v Ranks (Ireland) Ltd |
Injunction to prevent disposal of flour within Ireland refused because no evidence of wrongful intention by defendant company - plaintiff must have a "good arguable case" |
|
O'Mahony v Horgan |
SC approved requirements set out in Third Chandris Shipping Corpn v Unimarine SA - money received on insurance policy not subject to Mareva injunction because no intention |
|
Countyglen v Carway |
Murphy J equated "good arguable case" with Campus Oil standard |
|
Bambrick v Cobley |
Clarke J held that consequences of non-disclosure were not automatic - depends on: i) materiality ii) culpability iii) overall circumstances Although non-disclosure was not deliberate, the plaintiff as a solicitor was culpable and the injunction was discharged Inferences based on removal of assets weigh less strongly where second country is a convention country |
|
Republic of Haiti v Duvalier |
Order against extra-territorial assets of dictator was enforceable but depended on co-operation of foreign courts |
|
Collier v Gharion |
With regard to the requirement that grounds must be given for the fear that assets will be wrongfully removed or dissipated, Barrington J confirmed that principle that individuals are ordinarily not entitled to orders preventing another person from dealing with their own assets |
|
Tracey v Bowen |
Defendant overheard telling 3rd party he planned to move to Spain - material circumstance but possession of apartment in Ireland rebutted this |
|
Moloney v Laurib Investments Ltd |
Court decided that the parents could not give a worthwhile undertaking as to damages in the context of the scale of the loss that would be suffered by the company if it was stopped from selling the asset |
|
Sociedade Nacionale v Lundqvust |
An ancillary aspect of a Mareva injunctions requiring the defendant to disclose location and value of assets was held to infringe the right against self-incrimination because it could give rise to a criminal conviction |
|
Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes Ltd |
Defendant's alleged to be selling confidential information to plaintiff's rivals - test for Anton Piller Order set out |
|
Microsoft v Brightpoint Ireland Ltd |
Defendant company alleged not to have licences to products. Smyth J noted that English legislative safeguards do not apply in Ireland. |
|
Columbia Picture Industries Inc v Robinson |
View of English courts that Anton Piller Orders were too readily granted and allowed balance to swing too much in favour of plaintiffs. Defendant had gone out of business and unrelated material had been confiscated as a result of the order. |
|
Civil Procedure Rules, Part 25 |
English statutory requirements designed to control Anton Piller orders |
|
Ranks Film Distribution Ltd v Video Centre Ltd |
Counsel for the defendants "reveled in the wickedness" of defendants in order to invoke the privilege against self incrimination |
|
S.72 Supreme Court Act 1981 |
Removal in England of the privilege against self-incrimination in relation to intellectual property claims |
|
IBM United Kingdom Ltd v Prima Data International Ltd |
Defendant complied with Anton Piller Order after privilege against self incrimination was explained and subsequently could not rely on it |
|
O Ltd v Z |
Lindsay J suggested that awareness of privilege was not a necessary pre-condition to waiver |
|
Bayer AG v Winter |
Case establishing Bayer Order - must intend to leave country in order to frustrate administration of justice |
|
O'Neill v O'Keeffe |
Bayer Order granted restraining the defendant from leaving the jurisdiction without the permission of the court |