( iv) The plaintiff should give some grounds for believing that there is risk
of the assets being removed before the judgment or award is satisfied.
( v) The plaintiff must give an undertaking as to damages.
 The Court of Appeal observed, in para. 43, that items
( i), ( ii) and ( v) are “standard guidelines in this province in
considering whether to grant an interlocutory injunction in the
 Further, in Chitel, at para. 55, the court restated that
proposition in relation to items ( i), ( ii) and ( v) of Lord Denning’s
guidelines, noting that “when an application for a Mareva
injunction is before the court, the material under items ( i) and
( ii) of the guidelines must be such, as I have already said, as
persuades the court that the plaintiff has a strong prima facie
case on the merits”.
 The court then went on to discuss guidelines ( iii) and ( iv),
which, as it described at para. 56, are “unique to the Mareva
injunction”. With respect to guideline ( iii), the court provided the
The material under item ( iii), which deals with the assets of the defendant
within the jurisdiction, should establish those assets with as much precision
as possible so that, if a Mareva injunction is warranted, it is directed
towards specific assets or bank accounts. It would be unusual and in a sense
punitive to tie up all the assets and income of a defendant who is a citizen
and resident within the jurisdiction. Damages, covered by an undertaking
as to damages, might be far from compensating for the ramifications and
destructive effect of such an order. In the instant case, this was the order
sought and initially secured without any attempted identification of assets
to which the order would be directed. It may well be that a plaintiff may
have no knowledge of any of the defendant’s assets or their location, but that
was not stated to be the case in the instant application.
 In Chitel, the court made it clear that the court has jurisdiction to grant a Mareva injunction in a proper case. I note
parenthetically that the appellant accepted and admitted that
courts have jurisdiction to grant worldwide Mareva injunctions.
In Chitel, the court cautioned, at para. 61, that “the courts must
be careful to ensure that the ‘new’ Mareva injunction is not used
as and does not become a weapon in the hands of plaintiffs to
force inequitable settlements from defendants who cannot afford
to risk ruin by having an asset or assets completely tied up for
a lengthy period of time awaiting trial”.
 In regard to what must be established in order to obtain
a Mareva injunction, it is significant that throughout their
reasons in Chitel, the Court of Appeal described the factors to
be considered in relation to the issuance of a Mareva injunction