## Facts

- Derby & Company, Ltd. and related companies (collectively, Derby) owned and operated certain companies that Anthony Weldon and others (collectively, Weldon) managed.
- Derby sued Weldon on multiple causes of action, including fraudulent breach of fiduciary duty, arising from alleged dishonest conduct in the management of the companies.
- Derby asserted that Weldon’s assets were located in several countries and that Weldon could move assets into overseas companies that would be difficult to reach by enforcement.
- Derby applied before trial for a Mareva (freezing) injunction to restrain dealings with Weldon’s assets and for disclosure of assets, seeking relief that would extend beyond the United Kingdom.
- The trial court found evidence supporting an inference of dishonesty and accepted that Weldon had the ability to move assets abroad, creating a risk to the effectiveness of any eventual judgment.
- Even so, the trial court limited the Mareva injunction to the United Kingdom, reasoning that a worldwide order could severely prejudice the respondents because they would face the burden and expense of contesting, implementing, or responding to the injunction in multiple foreign jurisdictions while also preparing for a complex trial in England.
- The trial court also noted that Weldon had not been adjudged to have acted dishonestly (and might never be).
- Both sides appealed: Derby challenged the refusal of worldwide relief; Weldon challenged the finding that there was a real risk of dissipation of assets abroad.

## Issues

1. Whether the English court had power, in a case within its in personam jurisdiction over the defendants, to grant a prejudgment Mareva injunction and related disclosure with worldwide effect.
2. If the court had that power, what conditions should govern the grant of a worldwide freezing order so that defendants are not subjected to undue oppression and third parties are not unfairly affected.
3. Whether the evidence justified the trial court’s finding of a real risk that Weldon would dispose of or conceal foreign assets so that a judgment would go unsatisfied.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal allowed Derby’s appeal and dismissed Weldon’s cross-appeal.
- The court held that it had jurisdiction to grant a prejudgment Mareva injunction restraining dealings with assets outside the jurisdiction, because the order operates in personam against defendants subject to the court’s authority.
- The court concluded that a worldwide Mareva and associated disclosure order should be granted only in an exceptional case; on the record, this case met that standard.
- The court upheld the trial court’s assessment that there was a real risk of dissipation of assets abroad, given the evidence of dishonest conduct and the defendants’ capacity to place assets beyond reach through overseas entities.
- The court directed that worldwide relief be granted subject to safeguards designed to (i) reduce the risk of oppressive multi-forum disputes, (ii) prevent misuse of compelled disclosure, and (iii) protect the interests of third parties who might be affected by attempts to give effect to the order abroad.

## Legal Principles

- A Mareva (freezing) injunction is an equitable, prejudgment remedy directed to the defendant personally; it restrains the defendant’s dealings with assets rather than seizing property.
- An English court with personal jurisdiction over a defendant may, in an appropriate case, order a freeze that extends to assets abroad, because the order does not purport to transfer title or exercise direct control over foreign property.
- A worldwide freezing order and worldwide disclosure are not routine; they may be granted only in an exceptional case where the court is satisfied that, without such relief, any eventual judgment is at serious risk of being rendered ineffective.
- A central prerequisite is a real risk of dissipation: evidence of dishonesty and the practical ability to move assets through overseas structures may justify the inference that assets will be put out of reach before judgment.
- Because worldwide orders can impose heavy burdens, the court should build protections into the order, including measures that:
  - guard against undue oppressiveness arising from parallel disputes in multiple foreign courts over implementation;
  - restrict the use of information obtained by disclosure so it is not used for improper collateral purposes in foreign proceedings; and
  - protect third parties (such as banks and other intermediaries) so they are not placed in avoidable difficulty, including by clear drafting that preserves the personal nature of the order and avoids requiring conduct that would conflict with foreign law or foreign court orders.

## Conclusion

Derby & Co., Ltd. v. Weldon (No. 1) holds that the English Court of Appeal may, in an exceptional case and with tightly framed safeguards, grant a prejudgment worldwide Mareva injunction and ancillary disclosure to prevent defendants from dissipating overseas assets and to preserve the practical value of any later judgment.


Derby & Co., Ltd. v. Weldon (No. 1), [1989] E.C.C. 283 (1988)