Jurisdiction to Grant an Interim Freezing Order
Anglo-Japanese Comparison
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 9929832 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Koji Takahashi (0009-0001-4578-8685, corresponding author) |
| Year | 1999 |
| Volume | 48 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 431-436 |
| Publication date | 1999-04-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | International and Comparative Law Quarterly (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0020-5893 • E-ISSN: 1471-6895 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s0020589300063272 |
| OpenAlex | W2135481883 |
| Language | EN |
If a defendazCnt to legal proceedings conceals or dissipates his assets before a judgment is given, the execution of the ensuing judgment may become impossible. To preserve the possibility that a future judgment will be executed, both English and Japanese courts have power to grant interim relief freezing a defendant's assets. As is well known, this is achieved in England by the Mareva injunction, which is now called simply “freezing injunction” with the implementation of the new Civil Procedure Rules. In Japan, it is the kari-sashiosae order available under the Civil Interim Relief Law ( Minji Hozen Ho ) 1 which serves this purpose
Business · Civil procedure · Economics · Interim · Jurisdiction · Law and economics · Order (exchange · Political science · European and International Contract Law · Finance · Law · Law, logistics, and international trade · Legal principles and applications
| Highly cited | No |
|---|