Subsequent to that affidavit the third parties have sworn affidavits stating that the defendant is authorised to sign their name for all transactions. Mr.Conti said this was an extraordinary authority. I agree. It is not an authority to sign on behalf of the third parties but to sign their name as if it were the signature of the third parties. Indeed on 11 April, that is a few days after the Texan court issued an order which included the equivalent of a Mareva injunction, instructions were purportedly given by the third parties to the BOS to transfer monies from the account to a bank in the United Arab Emirates. The plaintiff has deposed that the handwriting is that of her husband and indeed the third parties do not seem to dispute this. There is thus the clearest possible risk of dissipation.

The third parties claim that the monies held in the BOS are their money. This is disputed by the Plaintiff. I cannot resolve that dispute today. Nor does that allegation of the third parties found the basis of the application by the third parties to discharge the injunction. What is said is that unless the Plaintiff informs the Court what assets have been seized in other accounts elsewhere this Court cannot know whether this injunction is actually necessary to protect the plaintiff's position. I was not persuaded by that argument. Having regard to the way in which the defendant apparently deals with monies in accounts in the name of himself, his wife, his brothers and sister and his deceased mother it is most unlikely that the Plaintiffs could be able today to form a clear picture of what assets are truly community property and what assets will ultimately be available to discharge her claim on her husband. The Plaintiff's present estimate of the community property is $3-4m. The sum in the IOM is about $1.2m. There may be assets elsewhere in the name of the husband which have been frozen and which may prove in the event to be available to discharge the husband's liability to the wife. But I think it is unrealistic to expect the Plaintiffs to be able to give chapter and verse on such matters today. In my judgment the making of this injunction has been shown by the plaintiff to be reasonably required to protect her position against the risk
that any judgment she may obtain against the defendant will be unsatisfied.

The third parties submitted in the alternative that the injunction should only be maintained for 50% of the sums in the BOS. This submission was made on the basis that taking into account the claim of the third parties to the monies, the claim they make that the injunction has caused them inconvenience and possible loss and the possibility that even if the money is the defendant's the plaintiff may not be entitled to it all such an order would, in the round, be just.

I am not satisfied that these are good grounds for reducing the amount of the injunction. It is possible depending upon the outcome of proceedings in other jurisdictions that the sum of $1.2 in the BOS may form the larger part of the plaintiff's security. To reduce the Mareva in those circumstances may leave the Plaintiff substantially unprotected against the risk of an unsatisfied judgment.