Every lawyer knows of the jurisdiction of the court to restrain a defendant from dissipating or disposing of his assets in order to avoid satisfaction of any judgment which might thereafter be awarded against him: this is the well known Mareva injunction, now given statutory recognition by s. 37(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981. A favourite asset of injunction-seekers, and one which above all others is easily immobilized and safe from unauthorized dissipation, is the defendant’s bank account. The asset is realizable only with the co-operation of the third party bank, which has a reputation to lose in giving that co-operation, not to mention the more usual penalties for contempt of court. The dramatic growth in use of the Mareva injunction in situations where five years ago the courts would not have countenanced its operation has led to certain practical problems. One such problem is the increasing number of defendants whose only or main bank account is an account held jointly with an innocent person, perhaps the defendant’s spouse. Two questions then arise. First, will the court grant a Mareva injunction over a joint bank account? Secondly, if it will, what is the effect of that injunction, particularly on the innocent joint account holder?

It is clear that the court has jurisdiction to make the order, even though the property concerned belongs in part to an innocent third party. Section 37(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 provides:

“The High Court may by order (whether interlocutory or final) grant an injunction or appoint a receiver in all cases in which it appears to the Court to be just and convenient to do so”.

“If it is thought that the defendant may have moneys in a joint account, with others, the injunction shall be framed in terms wide enough to cover the joint account, if the Judge thinks it desirable for the protection of the plaintiff”.

“Similarly, take the case of joint accounts in the name of the defendant and of some other person or persons. A bank will not generally know in what way the amounts standing to the credit of such accounts have been provided by the defendant or the other account holders respectively; and the other account holders may not be parties to the action and accordingly cannot be subjected to the injunction. Accordingly, any order which it is intended to serve on a bank should not be applicable to joint accounts unless the order is so drafted as to make it clear that it is also intended to apply to them; but this would only be justifiable in rare cases”.