Babanaft International v. Bassatne
United Kingdom Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
[1989] E.C.C. 151 (1988)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
After Babanaft International Company S.A. (Babanaft) (plaintiff) won a judgment in excess of $15 million against Bahaedine Bassatne (Bahaedine) and two affiliated individuals (defendants), the trial court issued a Mareva injunction (i.e., an injunction freezing Bahaedine’s assets pending resolution of the action), which the court limited to the United Kingdom. The trial court subsequently extended the injunction’s geographic reach by requiring Bahaedine to provide Babanaft with five days’ notice before moving or using any worldwide assets. Babanaft notified numerous individuals and banks around the world about the revised injunction. Bahaedine appealed, arguing that unqualified postjudgment Mareva injunctions were improper or that, in the alternative, postjudgment Mareva orders should expressly bind only the defendant and make clear that third parties are not affected.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kerr, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
