One of the hazards of litigation which a plaintiff has to accept, is the risk of the defendant surreptitiously disposing of his assets so as to evade any judgment that may be obtained against him. Until recently there was little that the plaintiff could do to minimise the risk, for it was generally accepted that until judgment the assets of the defendant were inviolable. On the 22nd of May 1975, the English Court of Appeal in Nippon Yusen Kaisha v. Karageorgis, departed from the previous practice and granted an ex-parte interlocutory injunction to restrain non-resident defendants from removing out of the jurisdiction, any of their assets located within the jurisdiction. This form of injunction is now commonly referred to as the Mareva injunction and is now a well established feature of English law. In the local context, the existence of a Mareva jurisdiction has been confirmed both in Malaysia and Singapore. In Zainal Abidin v. Century Hotel Sdn. Bhd., the Federal Court of Malaysia confirmed the existence of the jurisdiction, although the High Court in Malaya had earlier denied that it had jurisdiction. In Singapore it would appear that the existence of the Mareva jurisdiction had been recognised for some time by the High Court, although it was only in Art Trend Ltd. v. Blue Dolphin (Pte) Ltd., that a written judgment was delivered by the High Court confirming the existence of the jurisdiction. The purpose of this article will be to examine three aspects of the Mareva injunction.