24 Jun 2015
The application for committal was dismissed because the respondent produced the documents required by the tracing order during an Order 49B examination in August 2013 and confirmed that production in evidence, leaving no basis for committal.
7 Oct 1989
The court held that tracing orders in aid of a Mareva do not demand a higher standard of proof than the Mareva itself; the plaintiff had established a good arguable case, shown a real risk of dissipation and demonstrated exceptional circumstances (substantial claim, inadequate disclosed local assets and likelihood of foreign dealings), therefore a worldwide Mareva and ancillary tracing/disclosure orders should continue; the defendants' summons to discharge the orders was dismissed but limited time extensions for compliance were granted and the prohibitory order was extended for six weeks.