L. Ritacca

The plaintiffs obtained a Mareva injunction against the defendant, Dr. Al Jabri, requiring him to disclose his worldwide assets and submit to cross-examination.

During the cross-examination, disputes arose regarding the scope of permissible questions, particularly concerning assets held prior to the Mareva order, assets gifted to his son, and assets transferred to others.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for directions.

The court held that the plaintiffs are entitled to examine the defendant on former assets, gifted assets, and transferred assets to test whether he retains any continuing interest in or control over them, as such assets would be captured by the Mareva order.

The court provided a framework for the permissible scope of cross-examination and ordered the defendant to re-attend.

The plaintiffs appealed a case management master's order requiring them to post security for costs under Rule 56.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The earlier appeal had remitted the matter for reconsideration of the merits using the correct standard of whether the plaintiffs had a “good chance of success.” On rehearing, the master concluded the plaintiffs failed to establish a good chance of success and again ordered security for costs.

The Superior Court held the master correctly applied the proper legal test, carefully scrutinized the evidence and prior decisions, and exercised discretion appropriately.

No error of law, misapprehension of evidence, or improper exercise of discretion was established.