Edgar Joseph Jr J:

It has been said that applications for Mareva injunctions are invariably made ex parte in the first instance because in a genuine Mareva case the defendant ex hypothesi is likely to hasten the removal of his assets once he becomes aware of any application preventing him from doing so. "The whole point of the Mareva jurisdiction," said Mustill J in the Third Chandris Shipping Corporation v. Unimarine S.A. [1979] QB 645, 653, "is that the plaintiff proceeds by stealth, so as to pre-empt any action by the defendant to remove his assets from the jurisdiction." In the same way the Court of Appeal in Mediterranea Raffineria Siciliana Petroli S.p.a. v. Mabanaft GmbH Unreported [1978] noted by Charity, loc. cit. 356, emphasized the need to "see the stable door is locked before the horse is gone." For this reason, in altogether exceptional and in extreme circumstances, a Judge can entertain a telephonic request by Counsel for a Mareva injunction and, if the matter is satisfactorily explained, make an order accordingly; see, for example, Allen v. Jumbo Holdings Ltd. [1980] 1 WLR 1252, 1254, 1255. In this case, however, the application was made inter partes because