Freezing Injunctions in England & Wales: A Checklist for Overseas Litigators

A freezing injunction prevents moving or spending assets where there is a real risk the opponent might intend to make themselves judgment-proof by hiding them. It is granted to prevent enforcement being defeated before judgment, but it does not determine liability and does not confer security over other creditors.

When to consider this remedy

Consider freezing relief where there is a credible risk that a judgment will be rendered worthless because assets will be moved, concealed, or dissipated before you can enforce. It is most apt where:

• the claim is for a substantial money judgment, and
• the defendant has assets that can be restrained, and
• the evidence points to enforcement risk because of sinister reasons.

The big advantage is that, where it succeeds, it can force the opponent to immediately disclose all material assets (potentially worldwide) held directly or indirectly, supported by urgent disclosure (in a few days) of bank statements and other relevant documents. It can constrain living expenses and legal fees and it can be accompanied by a costs order in your favour. In high stakes litigation, it is therefore a powerful tool. It can also be used to support foreign proceedings if the defendant has a base in England or probably has assets here.

The four requirements

The applicant must usually establish four matters:

1. Good arguable case for a money judgment.

2. Assets to which enforcement may attach.

3. Real risk of dissipation.

4. Just and convenient to grant the relief sought.

1) Good arguable case: do not proceed with an underdeveloped claim

At the merits threshold, the Court is looking for a case which has some proper substance to it, albeit not necessarily one which is clearly going to succeed.

In practice, where there is an English cause of action, claimants often try to show how their case is very strong. If it is a freezing order in support of foreign proceedings, it may be necessary to get evidence of foreign law and translations of the foreign pleadings.

2) Assets

There must be a reason to think that there are assets on which the injunction can bite, whether owned by the defendant or under the defendant’s practical control. If you can point to property, bank accounts (even if historic) or an expensive lifestyle, that should suffice.

3) Dissipation

The claimant must show a real risk that, absent an order, the defendant will deal with assets so as to frustrate enforcement.

Common errors:

• alleging dishonesty as a substitute for dissipation;
• treating foreign assets as evidence of dissipation;
• assuming that resistance to the claim implies asset flight.

Showing dishonesty in the underlying claim is very helpful to getting the order, but not always enough. But if the respondent has put their house on the market, or uses complex financial structures, or whose litigation engagement strategy is suspicious, then that can often suffice. Delay in bringing the application be a problem in marginal applications – the Judge might take the view that any dissipation has probably already occurred and it is futile to make an order.

4) Discretion: treat “just and convenient” as substantive

Increasingly, the Court asks whether the order sought is proportionate and workable. It will consider consequences to the respondent and third parties. It will be alert to oppression.

Key considerations include:

• delay and its explanation;
• whether the draft order goes beyond the evidence;
• whether the order would cripple a trading business;
• whether the application is being used to exert improper settlement pressure; and
• whether the claimant can meet the cross-undertaking in damages.

The cross-undertaking is real. Fortification may be required.

Without notice: candour is a condition of the jurisdiction

If the application is without notice (as it usually is), the duty of full and frank disclosure applies. The applicant must present material facts and legal points the respondent might take, including those adverse to the applicant. Failure to do this can lead to discharge of an otherwise deserved freezing order and swinging costs consequences (and sometimes regulatory referrals).

What it actually gets you

Freezing relief is often pursued for three practical outcomes.

(1) Immediate restraint of dealings

The order restrains dealing with assets up to the capped sum. It puts the brakes on asset movement and puts the respondent on clear notice that asset flight carries contempt risk.

It remains a negative restraint. It does not create security, and it does not guarantee recoverability. But it can prevent the simplest and most damaging forms of asset movement.

(2) Strong, early asset disclosure

The standard form of freezing order usually requires the respondent to disclose assets promptly and then confirm by sworn evidence. This is frequently the immediate value of the exercise. It can convert guesswork into an enforcement plan. This usually helps create a space for settlement.

That disclosure can also enable you to put massive pressure on the respondent since it gives you:

• the existence and location of bank accounts and brokers;
• shareholdings and other investments;
• interests in property;
• material movements in assets; and
• points of contact for third-party enforcement steps.

It also creates evidential “lines” for follow-up: inconsistencies, omissions, or suspicious transfers that can be pursued through further disclosure applications, third-party disclosure routes, and, where appropriate, contempt proceedings.

(3) Transparency as to the economics of the litigation

A freezing order tends to produce transparency, even if incomplete. It often allows the claimant to assess whether the litigation has a rational enforcement upside.

Return date: expect scrutiny, narrowing, and conditions

The initial order is provisional and on the return date the Court will reconsider the matter with the respondent present. Orders are commonly varied: narrower scope, revised carve-outs, adjusted disclosure, and additional safeguards.

Applications are sometimes discharged because dissipation evidence does not withstand testing or the duty of candour was not met.

Common failure points

• Thin dissipation evidence dressed up as inference.
• Overbroad worldwide relief without a disciplined justification.
• Unworkable carve-outs (either too tight to live with or too loose to police).
• Failure to confront delay in evidence and chronology.
• Full and frank shortcomings (missing adverse points, missing procedural vulnerabilities).
• Inadequate cross-undertaking position (including failure to address fortification where obvious).

Imran Benson, Barrister

Imran.benson@hailshamchambers.com

Imran Benson (Call 2005) practises in commercial litigation, with a particular focus on disputes involving dishonesty, urgent interim relief and cross-border enforcement. He is regularly instructed in cases arising from fraud, failed investments and shareholder disputes, and is experienced in FSMA/securities issues and D&O disputes where fraud is central.

He regularly obtains and resists injunctions, including worldwide freezing orders, search and imaging orders, and other urgent protective relief. Recent work includes a current £18m corporate fraud claim against former senior executives involving coordinated WFO and search relief, ancillary applications in 10 overseas jurisdictions, and a Court of Appeal hearing (June 2025) concerning freezing injunctions.

Directories describe him as “bright, very commercially minded… user friendly” (Legal 500) and praise advice that “doesn’t sit on the fence” (Chambers UK).

Selected cases include: Van Zuylen v Whiston-Dew [2021] EWHC 2219 (commercial fraud: offshore trusts, FSMA, deceit); Cool Seas v Interfish [2018] EWHC 2038 (17-day trial, s.994 petition and cross-allegations of fraud); and a sole-counsel dishonesty coverage arbitration >£20m against a team led by multiple KCs.