General

Mayo Associates v Anagram

[1995] JLR JLR950190Jersey Law Reports1995

“Injunctions-Mareva injunction-discharge-immediate discharge of Mareva injunction justified by plaintiff's failure to explain serious abuse of associated Anton Piller order (e.g.”

Read the full brief — free

You're reading the free summary of Mayo Associates v Anagram. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.

Create free account Already have one? Sign in

No card required. Free forever.

Read the full judgment elsewhere

Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.

More General cases

XX v GH

[2026] EWFC OJ 51

UI2024005379 & UI2024005667

[2026] UKAITUR UI2024005379

Ohene (2) Ocarina (3) Omeri v (1) Ornet (2) Orrick

[2026] DIFC DCFI_111

Mr W Clancy v Tuffnells Ltd (England and Wales : Unfair Dismissal)

[2026] UKET 6027608_2025

Bank Of Baroda (DIFC Branch) v (1) Neopharma LLC (2) Nmc Healthcare LLC (3) New Medical Centre LLC (4) Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty

[2026] DIFC DCFI_043

Ms L Grubb v South Central Youth Ltd (England and Wales : Redundancy)

[2026] UKET 2307048_2025

This case is reproduced verbatim from the public judgment published by The National Archives under the UK Government's Open Government Licence v3.0. If you appear in this case and believe it should not be published — for example because your conviction was quashed on appeal, you have statutory anonymity, or for other privacy reasons — request removal here.