|
Насчет clause ничего сказать не могу, но, похоже, речь идет о прецеденте, типа кораблик затонул, под названием "Angel Bell" ... Similarly, in The Angel Bell (Iraqi Ministry of Defence v. Arcspey Shipping [1980] 1 All E. R. 480.) a Mareva injunction taken by cargo owners against a shipowner was varied so that the defendant shipowner could repay a loan to equitble mortgagees out of insurance proceeds of the(sunken) vessel. It can be seen that it is not only defendants who may apply for a variation, but also intervenors such as mortgagees, receivers/debenture holders,98 port authorities and banks.
In practice, the defendant will be required to bring forward information to rebut any presumptions from the plaintiffs evidence that the defendant is unable to meet claims. The defendant may need to be franker than it would prefer and give evidence of assets available elsewhere.
It follows that the Mareva injunction cannot improve the position of claimants in an insolvency and can only be used to prevent a defendant dissipating assets that would otherwise have been made available to satisfy a judgement. Thus, in The Angel Bell a contest arose over the insurance proceeds of a vessel, between cargo claimants and an equitable mortgagee of the ship (and assignee of the policy of insurance). The question was whether the court should lift a Mareva injunction granted to the cargo owners over the insurance proceeds, so that the Panamanian shipowners could use them to repay the loan to the mortgagee. In English law the cargo owners would not have been entitled to petition for the winding up of the shipowning company, as they had not yet obtained judgment. The effect of continuing the Mareva injunction would have been to give the cargo owners a priority to which they were not entitled, by giving them (at least where the defendant is a foreign company) the status of judgment creditor before they have a judgment. On that basis, there was no reason why the debtor should not be able to meet its debts
|
