In The Veracruz I,1 the Court of Appeal purported to justify and apply, for the first time giving clear reasons, a limitation recognized in a number of earlier cases upon the jurisdiction of the High Court to grant interlocutory injunctions in general, and Mareva injunctions in particular. It is argued here, with great respect, that the court was wrong, in that it misapprehended the decision of the House of Lords, which it purported to follow and, indeed, formulated the law in a manner conflicting with statements of principle comprising the House of Lords’ ratio decidendi there and