Trigonis

Since its inception in 1975, the freezing injunction has proven a veritable device against recalcitrant debtors operating in international markets such as the maritime trade, and as a robust deterrent against international fraud operations. While controversial in its incursion upon the proprietary freedom of defendants, it is not contested that this equitable remedy fulfils an important purpose. Nonetheless, this research piece advocates that the present framework governing the Mareva injunction is unduly claimant-friendly, allowing applicants to lodge this device in an unmeritorious manner to vindicate a motive ulterior to that of enforcing their right to judgment. At the same time, it will be established that the freezing order, even if dismissed as unjustified ex post, reaps a degree of irreparable injury to the affairs of the defendant which is not sufficiently considered. Leaving the affairs of the recipient seriously circumscribed, a more onerous standard for Mareva relief will be called for, as well as a galvanization of the safeguards set in place to protect the innocent defendant from meretricious freezing orders.