| 单词 | Mareva injunction |
| 释义 | 資產凍結令 An interlocutory court order restraining a party from removing from the jurisdiction of the court, or otherwise dealing with, assets, whether money or goods, which are the subject of the injunction: Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulkcarriers SA (The Mareva) [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 509; [1980] 1 All ER 213n. The order may be made before or after judgment against a defendant, whether or not based in Hong Kong: The Rules of the High Court (Cap 4A) O 29 r 1(1); High Court Ordinance (Cap 4) s 21L(3); Assets Investments Pte Ltd v United Islamic Investments Foundation [1995] 1 HKC 560 (CA). A Mareva injunction may be granted when (1) it appears likely that the plaintiff will recover judgment against the defendant for a certain or approximate item; and (2) there are also reasons to believe that the defendant has assets to meet the judgment in whole or in part but may well take steps designed to ensure that these are no longer available or traceable when judgment is given against him: Z Ltd v A-Z & AA-LL [1982] QB 558, 1 All ER 556 (CA); Macy’s Candies Ltd v Chan Man Hong [1997] 2 HKC 602. It may also be granted where judgment has been given for the plaintiff and there are grounds for believing that the judgment debtor will dispose of assets to avoid execution: Orwell Steel (Erection and Fabrication) Ltd v Asphalt and Tarmac (UK) Ltd [1985] 3 All ER 747, [1984] 1 WLR 1097. A Mareva injunction cannot by itself act as the foundation on which to grant leave to serve out of the jurisdiction under the Rules of the High Court O 11: Mercedes-Benz AG v Leiduck [1995] 3 HKC 1. The court order must make it clear which assets are to be included within the ambit of the injunction: Pappadis v Chan Shing Sheung, Barry [1989] 2 HKLR 511 (CA). It cannot be granted in respect of an anticipated claim no matter how strong the evidence that the respondent was likely to dissipate his assets: Gainluxe Investment Ltd v Superstand Development Ltd [1994] 3 HKC 641. The standard form contents of a Mareva injunction prohibiting the disposal of assets in Hong Kong and of a Mareva injunction prohibiting disposal of assets worldwide are now prescribed by Practice Direction: High Court Practice Direction No 11.2 ‘Mareva Injunctions and Anton Piller Orders’. See also Injunction; Interlocutory injunction. 非正審強制令以禁制任何法律程序的一方將位於原訟法庭的司法管轄權範圍內的資產由該司法管轄範圍內移走或以其他方式處理，不論是金錢或貨物，皆屬強制令的標的事項：Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulkcarriers SA (The Mareva) [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 509; [1980] 1 All ER 213n。法令可針對被告人在判決前或判決後作出，不論是否以香港作為基準：高等法院規則(第4A章)第29號命令第1條規則；《高等法院條例》(第4章)第21L條(3)；Assets Investments Pte Ltd v United Islamic Investments Foundation [1995] 1 HKC 560 （上訴法院）。資產凍結令可在以下的情況下作出：(1) 當看似相當可能原訴人會針對被告人就某特定或近似的物品追討判決；及(2) 有理由相信被告人有資產完全或部分達到判決，但可作出步驟以確定當針對被告人作出判決時再沒有可行或可追溯的步驟：Z Ltd v A-Z & AA-LL [1982] QB 558, 1 All ER 556 （英國上訴法院）；Macy’s Candies Ltd v Chan Man Hong [1997] 2 HKC 602。當判原訴人得直，以及有理由相信判定債務人會將其資產處置以避開執行判決，即可授予資產凍結令：Orwell Steel (Erection and Fabrication) Ltd v Asphalt and Tarmac (UK) Ltd [1985] 3 All ER 747, [1984] 1 WLR 1097。根據高等法院規則(第4A章)第11號命令，資產凍結令本身不可作為授予在司法管轄權範圍外送達令狀的根據：Mercedes-Benz AG v Leiduck [1995] 3 HKC 1。法令須清晰地列明資產須包含在強制令的範圍內：Pappadis v Chan Shing Sheung, Barry [1989] 2 HKLR 511 （上訴法院）。它不得就預期提出的申索作出授予，不論證明答辯人相當可能消耗其資產的證據有多有力：Gainluxe Investment Ltd v Superstand Development Ltd [1994] 3 HKC 641。禁止在香港處置資產的資產凍結令及禁止在全球處置資產的資產凍結令的標準形式內容現在已於執業指引中列明：High Court Practice Direction No 11.2 ‘Mareva Injunctions and Anton Piller Orders’。另見 Injunction; Interlocutory injunction。 |
| 随便看 |
|
法律词典收录了8080条英汉双解法律词条，基本涵盖了常用法律英语单词及短语词组的翻译及用法，是法律学习的有利工具。