It is one thing to get judgment; it is quite another to enforce it, and the risk that an English judgment may be unenforceable reduces the incentive for a claimant to come and sue for it. This unwelcome realization gave birth to the pre- and post-judgment Mareva injunction—a brilliant piece of judicial engineering if ever there was one. It now seems to have spawned two further pieces of intelligent design aimed at making an English judgment more effective in the wider world. These are an understanding of receivership by way of equitable execution which will insulate this form of enforcement from objections based on the allegation that the English court is overreaching itself and interfering with another court’s business, and the post-judgment anti-suit injunction. The litigation which gave rise to Masri v. Consolidated Contractors International Co SAL 1 is wide-ranging and still raging, and much more can probably be expected before the parties succeed in litigating each other into the ground. But the real importance lies in the way the Court of Appeal saw its orders as routine and unremarkable incidents of adjudication before an English court; as ordinary aspects of civil process.