Filip Šaranović, Centre for Commercial Law Studies, Queen Mary University of London. ISBN 9781316511909. Cambridge University Press (2022) xi and 253 pp, plus 10 pp Index. Hardback £85.

In this handsome volume Dr Šaranović puts forward and defends the view, the foundation for which is found in his 2017 doctoral thesis, that the freezing injunction, formerly and still known as the Mareva injunction, is a flawed remedy. The principal flaws are that it is, in and of itself, an offence against the principle of even-handedness in litigation (here referred to as “equipage equality”); an offence against a proper understanding of the rules of international jurisdiction as they should be understood in this area; and an overreaching into business that is properly that of a foreign court. The thesis is worked out in detail, with wholly admirable attention to the English case law up to April 2021. Whether the thesis convinces is, of course, a matter of personal preference. Some will see in it an elaboration of a point of view, long ago advanced by Professor Zuckerman and never really answered. Others may see an attempt to discern a theory designed to clip (or amputate) the wings of the remedy, and which is therefore marginal to the practice of the courts, and, insofar as it seeks to tie the law to more general equitable doctrine, several decades too late. It is our misfortune that the work was concluded six months prior to the Privy Council’s radical restatement in Broad Idea International Ltd v Convoy Collateral Ltd [2021] UKPC 24; [2022] 2 WLR 703. But, insofar as the decision of the Board stands for the view that the