Mareva Injunction Question

Viarum

Hey all,

I've a pretty reasonable grasp of injunctions but there is one question that I'm somewhat unsure about.

I've always associated marevas with the prevention of the removal/dissipation of actual assets (say for example money in the bank).

However, what sort of relief might apply in the following situation:

A is an 18 year old girl that was sexually abused by her father, B.

Upon the charge, C (the girl's mother and successful businesswoman) filed for judicial separation with B.

A (daughter) attended the court hearing and is aware that C (mother) has to pay B (father) €1000 maintenance per week.

B is getting out of prison, and although A believes that B has no assets (as he had lost his job prior to the sentence), she wants to seek damages and gain access to the €1k per week maintenance.

However, A is fearful that B is going to bail out to South Africa as soon as he gets out of prison as he has family there.

A intends to gain a garnishee order to get her claws into his weekly cash.

However, my question is two-fold:

1) Does the mareva injunction have any relevance to the above scenario? In essence, does the weekly income constitute an asset for the purpose of such relief (even though it's really just future income)?

2) What affect does the in-camera nature of the judicial separation proceedings have on the means of knowledge clause required in the ex-parte conditional order of garnishee application? Can she adduce the knowledge she has of it as evidence, or is it privileged in some way?

Many thanks in advance, this is stuff that I haven't touched before so would be glad of any direction!

Victor

Note statute of limitations.

bath handle

Mareva injunction has nothing to do with this. A Mareva injunction is an order not to transfer assets out of the jurisdiction. Since she wants to garnishee an income stream within the jurisdiction Mareva injunction has no application. Garnishee is not appropriate either . it canonly apply to an immediate debt .

Milk & Honey

Victor wrote: »

Note statute of limitations.

A is 18 so the Statute of Limitations has just started to run. She has until she is 24 to initiate proceedings.

ManofStraw

I love how people in the inns try to get boards to do their homework for them

panda142

As a matter of interest (from a law student's point of view outside of Kings Inns) what way did you go with this? Is bath handle correct in saying a Mareva injunction isnt relevant here? I can't seemt to see anything else from my reading of the OP?

NoQuarter

I know bath handle said it was irrelevant but the KI gave us the problem and specifically told us to research Mareva Injunctions to stop him getting rid of his assets.