Relying on the unreported Court of Appeal decision in M.B.P.X.L. Corp. v. Intercontinental Banking Corp. Ltd.,88 Mustill, J., stated in Third Chandris Shipping Corp. v. Unimarine S.A.89 that where monies are the subject matter of a Mareva injunction the plaintiff should make out a prima facie case that such monies exist and where they may be found. The Court of Appeal in Third Chandris thought the requirement was put too high in M.B.P.X.L., in view of the plaintiff’s probably limited knowledge of the extent of the assets, and restricted the burden to evidence of some grounds that the defendant has assets here, which might be satisfied by proof of a bank account—even if overdrawn, for that was taken to evidence the presence of assets providing collateral security.90

This approach has its merits. Equity does not act in vain and an ambulatory injunction might subject an unknown number of third parties to its effect. Also, it was argued in Third Chandris, such an injunction might have the economically undesirable result of driving bona fide traders away from the jurisdiction. But the approach also has serious flaws. The bank account’s being overdrawn in Third Chandris may have been quite acceptable to the bank as the income from freight in any one month was very substantial.91 Even without such income, the existence of supposed assets as collateral security may be of little use to a plaintiff trying to assert rights after a bank which is itself exercising existing security rights over those assets. Moreover, the Mareva injunction may be most needed against an unreliable debtor who keeps his assets in a fluid state.

An order may be drawn with respect to unspecified assets and, it seems, to some future assets, at least if they are additional to present assets.92 It seems, therefore,