27 Jun 1990
MIOKO SAKURADA LOUVET v. LOUIS ARISTIDE CHARLES LOUVET AND ANOTHER
- Citation
- MIOKO SAKURADA LOUVET v. LOUIS ARISTIDE CHARLES LOUVET AND ANOTHER
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACV24/1990
Service of the application on the 2nd Respondent under Rule 74 was appropriate in the circumstances because she might be adversely affected and fraud was alleged; however the ancillary preservation, discovery and liberty‑restricting orders made against her and Modern China were outside the proper scope of Section 17 and the court lacked justification to impose Mareva‑style restraints on a non‑defendant; accordingly the appeal is allowed and those parts of the order are set aside while the service order is preserved.