Originally from American Review of International Arbitration - ARIA

Preview Page

Our personalities are quite different, but Hans Smit and I have a good many interests in common. We are both interested in international arbitration — as arbitrators and as commentators. We are both interested in comparative law and institutions. And we are both interested in international litigation, particularly in intricate and esoteric aspects — attachments of assets, situs of intangibles, recognition of foreign judgments, maneuvering for appropriate or inappropriate fora.1 All of these subjects became pertinent in an action for divorce between two citizens of Saudi Arabia resident in Spain. The two cities involved, believe it or not, were London and New York.

First some background, which will be familiar to Professor Smit, but perhaps not to all readers.

I.   BACKGROUND: THE MAREVA INJUNCTION BORN AND RAISED

1.   The Mareva Case 

In 1975, a Panamanian company, Mareva Companía Naviera S.A., time-chartered its vessel, the Mareva, to another Panamanian company, International Bulkcarriers, S.A., for a trip from Rotterdam to the Far East and back. Bulkcarriers subchartered the vessel to the President of India on a voyage charter. India paid the freight as provided in the subcharter to a bank account in London maintained by Bulkcarriers.2 Bulkcarriers was obligated to pay the shipowner twice a month, and it did so for the first two installments out of the London bank account; thereafter Bulkcarriers stopped paying. Mareva S.A., the shipowner, brought suit against Bulkcarriers in London, serving its agents in London and also applying for leave to serve out of the jurisdiction under the famous Order 11 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, England's analogue to what Americans call long-arm jurisdiction.