This work provides an up-to-date statement of the law and practice relating to Mareva injunctions and Anton Piller orders. This edition has been updated and expanded to include new cases, a new section on fraud and constructive trusts and a new Practice Direction

When applying for a Mareva Injunction or an Anton Piller order, practitioners have to act swiftly and are unlikely to have much time for research. Designed specifically for the practitioner, this book gives a concise guide to the procedures for both forms and order.

Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online. Pages: 44. Chapters: Account of profits, Anton Piller order, Attachment (law), Attachment of earnings, Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc., Blood money (restitution), Causation (law), Cession, Civil penalty, Clameur de haro, Consequential damages, Constructive trust, Cross-border injunction, Deficiency judgment, Diminution in value, Disgorgement (law), Distraint, Election of remedies, Enforcement of foreign judgments, Equitable remedy, Extrinsic fraud, Gang injunction, Garnishment, Grievance, Hedonic damages, Incidental damages, Legal remedy, Liquidated damages, Mareva injunction, Measure of damages under English law, Norwich Pharmacal Order, Prejudgment writ of attachment, Preliminary injunction, Provisional remedy, Pro rata, Punitive damages, Pure economic loss, Pure economic loss in English Law, Rectification (law), Recurso de amparo, Reliance damages, Replevin, Rescission, Smith v. Bolles, Specific performance, Speculative damages, State Farm v. Campbell, Statutory damages, Statutory damages for copyright infringement, Treble damages, United States v. 50 Acres of Land, Walking possession.

The Mareva and Anton Piller injunctions have been repeatedly criticized as constituting flagrant disregard for the rights of defendants because the orders are often granted at the pre-trial stage in ex parte hearings, without the defendants having the opportunity to defend themselves before some of their rights are temporarily upended as a result of the orders, and before a case is made out against them and their liability is established. It is for this reason that Lord Donaldson famously described the two orders as the law's "nuclear weapons". This paper analyzes and presents the true position of the law on both orders viz-a-viz the issue of contravention of the constitutional and other rights of defendants and concludes that, considering the strict guiding principles for the grant of both orders and how they take effect, they could not be more just and equitable.