How to Get a Freezing Injunction in Hong Kong (2026): Step-by-step Guide for Counsel

Understanding how to get a freezing injunction, also known as a Mareva injunction, is one of the most time-critical skills in Hong Kong dispute resolution. A freezing order prevents a respondent from disposing of or dealing with assets before a judgment or arbitral award can be enforced, and applications are routinely heard on an urgent, ex parte basis within hours of instruction. Hong Kong’s Court of First Instance confirmed the breadth of its powers in 2025 by granting worldwide freezing orders and appointing interim receivers in aid of enforcing arbitral awards, reinforcing the city’s reputation as a robust enforcement hub.

This guide sets out the evidential thresholds, procedural steps, drafting essentials and cross-border enforcement angles that practitioners need to move swiftly and effectively.

Quick Checklist, How to Get a Freezing Injunction via the Emergency Ex Parte Route

Speed is decisive. Where there is genuine risk that a respondent will dissipate assets, Hong Kong courts permit applications to be made without notice (ex parte). The following checklist covers the critical steps from first instruction to the courtroom door.

Who to Instruct and When

The moment a credible dissipation risk is identified, instruct specialist counsel experienced in Mareva injunction requirements in Hong Kong. In parallel, engage a forensic accountant or asset-tracing firm to begin mapping the respondent’s asset footprint, bank accounts, property, shareholdings and corporate vehicles, so that the evidence package is as complete as possible before the hearing.

Emergency Ex Parte Checklist

1. Identify the cause of action. Confirm the underlying claim (breach of contract, fraud, enforcement of arbitral award) and assemble core documents proving it.
2. Map the respondent’s assets. Prepare a schedule listing known assets within and outside Hong Kong, bank accounts, real property, shares, vehicles and receivables.
3. Gather dissipation evidence. Collect transaction records, bank statements, corporate filings and any communications suggesting asset movement or flight risk.
4. Draft the supporting affidavit. Set out the facts, exhibits and the basis for urgency. Full and frank disclosure of all material facts, including points adverse to your case, is mandatory.
5. Prepare the proposed order. Use the standard model freezing order as a template, adapting it to the scope of assets to be restrained, any carve-outs for ordinary living expenses and legal costs, and the maximum sum to be frozen.
6. Draft the undertaking as to damages. The applicant must undertake to compensate the respondent for any loss caused if the order is later found to have been wrongly granted. Evidence of the applicant’s financial standing or a guarantee may be required.
7. Contact the court office. Notify the Registrar of the Court of First Instance that an urgent ex parte application will be made and confirm the duty judge’s availability.
8. Attend the hearing. Counsel presents the application, the affidavit and the proposed order to the judge in chambers. If granted, arrange immediate service on the respondent and any third parties (banks, custodians).
9. Prepare for the return date. The court will fix a return date, typically within seven to fourteen days, at which the respondent can contest continuation of the order.

Documents to File at the Ex Parte Hearing

• Originating summons or writ (if proceedings have not yet been issued, a draft will suffice for urgent relief)
• Supporting affidavit with exhibits
• Schedule of the respondent’s known assets
• Draft proposed freezing order
• Written undertaking as to damages (with supporting evidence of solvency)
• Skeleton argument setting out the legal basis and authorities relied upon

Legal Test for a Freezing Injunction in Hong Kong, Mareva Injunction Requirements

The legal test for obtaining a freezing order in Hong Kong mirrors, in substance, the principles developed by the English courts but is applied within the framework of the High Court Ordinance (Cap. 4) and Order 29 of the Rules of the High Court. The court’s jurisdiction is broad, but the evidential bar is deliberately high because a freezing injunction is one of the most intrusive orders available in civil proceedings.

The Three Central Elements

An applicant must satisfy the court on three cumulative grounds:

• Good arguable case. The applicant must demonstrate a cause of action against the respondent that has a realistic prospect of success. This is a threshold standard, higher than merely “arguable” but lower than a balance of probabilities. The court assesses the strength of the underlying claim on the papers before it.
• Real risk of dissipation of assets. There must be solid evidence that, unless restrained, the respondent will remove assets from the jurisdiction or dispose of them so as to frustrate enforcement of a future judgment or award. Bare assertions or generalised fears are insufficient; the court expects concrete, particularised evidence.
• Balance of convenience. The court weighs the potential injustice to the applicant if the order is refused against the injustice to the respondent if it is granted, taking into account the undertaking as to damages offered by the applicant.

Jurisdictional and Interlocutory Thresholds

The court must be satisfied that there are assets within Hong Kong (or, for a worldwide order, assets outside the jurisdiction) that are susceptible to the order. For proceedings connected to international arbitration, Hong Kong courts have power to grant interim relief, including freezing injunctions, in support of both domestic and foreign-seated arbitrations. The Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) has confirmed that, under the Interim Measures Arrangement, Hong Kong is the first arbitration venue outside Mainland China where parties may obtain interim relief from Mainland courts, and vice versa.

Undertaking as to Damages, Legal Effect and Requirements

The Mareva injunction undertaking as to damages is not a formality. It is a binding promise by the applicant to pay compensation to the respondent (and, where relevant, to innocent third parties such as banks) if it later transpires that the order should not have been granted. The court will scrutinise:

• Whether the applicant has sufficient assets to honour the undertaking
• Whether a corporate applicant can provide security (a bank guarantee or parent company undertaking may be required)
• The quantum of potential loss to the respondent if the order is wrongly maintained

Failure to provide a credible undertaking as to damages is one of the most common reasons applications are refused or discharged.

Evidence of Risk of Dissipation, What Persuades the Court

Demonstrating a real risk of dissipation of assets is the single most contested element of any freezing injunction application. The court will not infer dissipation risk merely from the nature of the dispute or from the respondent’s nationality. Practitioners must assemble granular, contemporaneous evidence that points to a concrete risk of asset movement.

Dissipation Evidence Checklist

Using Forensic Accountants and Third-Party Subpoenas

In complex fraud or multi-jurisdictional cases, a forensic accountant’s affidavit can be decisive. The expert can trace fund flows across bank accounts, corporate registers and blockchain records, presenting them in a schedule the court can readily follow. Where third-party records are needed before the hearing, practitioners may apply for Norwich Pharmacal relief or third-party discovery orders to compel banks and registries to disclose account information. Early engagement of asset-tracing professionals is essential: by the time the hearing takes place, the court expects a clear, documented narrative of where the money has gone and why it is at risk.

Industry observers note that Hong Kong courts are increasingly receptive to technology-assisted tracing evidence, including blockchain analytics and digital forensic reports, particularly where the respondent’s assets include cryptocurrency or digital tokens.

Ex Parte Hearing, Practical Drafting and Forms for a Freezing Injunction

The quality of the application documents will determine whether the duty judge grants or refuses the order. Practitioners must balance thoroughness with the urgency inherent in an ex parte application.

Affidavit Structure

The supporting affidavit should follow a logical structure:

1. Identity and standing. Who the applicant is, the capacity in which they act, and their connection to the dispute.
2. The underlying cause of action. A concise summary of the claim, with key documents exhibited.
3. The respondent’s assets. A schedule listing every known asset, with supporting evidence (company searches, land registry records, bank correspondence).
4. Risk of dissipation. Particularised facts and exhibits demonstrating the risk, cross-referenced to the evidence checklist above.
5. Full and frank disclosure. A section specifically addressing any material facts adverse to the applicant’s case. Failure to make full and frank disclosure is one of the most serious pitfalls in ex parte practice, it can lead to discharge of the order, adverse costs consequences and, in extreme cases, findings of contempt.
6. The undertaking as to damages. A statement of the applicant’s financial position, ideally supported by audited accounts, a bank confirmation or a parent company guarantee.
7. The proposed order. A brief explanation of the relief sought and the terms of the draft order exhibited.

Drafting the Proposed Order

Hong Kong practitioners typically adapt the standard model freezing order, which itself draws on the UK model order published by the Ministry of Justice, to suit local practice. Key components of the proposed order include:

• A prohibition on dealing with or disposing of assets up to the specified maximum sum
• A provision for ordinary living expenses and legal costs (carve-outs)
• An asset disclosure obligation requiring the respondent to swear an affidavit listing all assets above a stated threshold
• A provision for notification of third parties (banks, custodians, brokers)
• The applicant’s undertaking as to damages
• The return date and arrangements for service

Drafting the Undertaking as to Damages

The undertaking is typically included both in the body of the proposed order and in a separate paragraph of the supporting affidavit. It should expressly state that the applicant will comply with any order the court may make if it later finds that the order has caused loss to the respondent for which the applicant should compensate. Where the applicant is a company incorporated outside Hong Kong, the court may require security, a bank guarantee, a payment into court, or a deed of indemnity from a creditworthy parent, before granting the order.

Worldwide Mareva Orders and Interim Receivers, 2025–2026 Hong Kong Practice

One of the most significant developments in Hong Kong freezing injunction practice in recent years has been the willingness of the Court of First Instance to grant worldwide Mareva injunctions and appoint interim receivers in aid of enforcement of arbitral awards. In May 2025, the Court of First Instance granted a suite of measures to support the enforcement of four Shanghai Arbitration Commission awards, including worldwide freezing injunctions over the assets of the award debtors and the appointment of interim receivers over specific shares held by the debtors.

This decision, widely covered in practitioner commentary, confirmed that Hong Kong courts will exercise their full arsenal of interim relief to assist award creditors, even where the underlying arbitration was seated outside Hong Kong. The court continued the previously granted worldwide freezing injunctions and vested receivers with powers to manage and, if necessary, realise the frozen assets.

When Will Hong Kong Courts Grant a Worldwide Freezing Injunction?

A worldwide Mareva injunction restrains the respondent from dealing with assets anywhere in the world, not merely those located in Hong Kong. The court will grant such an order where:

• The applicant demonstrates that assets within Hong Kong alone are insufficient to satisfy the judgment or award
• There is a real risk that overseas assets will be dissipated
• The order is necessary and proportionate, having regard to the size of the claim and the respondent’s global asset base
• The applicant provides a strengthened undertaking as to damages, typically supported by security or a guarantee

The Hong Kong Department of Justice has noted that the court’s power to grant interim measures in support of arbitration, including asset-freezing orders, extends to both domestic and international arbitrations, making Hong Kong a leading forum for award enforcement. Under the Interim Measures Arrangement between Hong Kong and Mainland China, parties to HKIAC-administered arbitrations can also apply to Mainland courts for interim preservation measures.

Interim Receivers, Powers and Practicalities

Where a simple freezing order is insufficient to protect the applicant’s interests, for instance, where the respondent holds shares in a private company and there is a risk of corporate action to diminish their value, the court may appoint interim receivers. Receivers are typically experienced insolvency practitioners who are vested with powers to take custody of specified assets, manage them in accordance with the court’s directions and, where authorised, realise or dispose of them. The likely practical effect of combining a worldwide freezing order with an interim receivership is to give award creditors a powerful enforcement mechanism that can reach assets held through layered corporate structures across multiple jurisdictions.

Enforcement Against Third Parties, Shares and Corporate Vehicles

Third parties, including banks, nominees and corporate directors, who receive notice of a freezing order are bound to comply with its terms. Dealing with assets in breach of a notified order constitutes contempt of court. Where the respondent’s assets are held through corporate vehicles, the applicant may seek ancillary orders requiring disclosure of the ultimate beneficial ownership of the relevant entities. In cross-border enforcement, Hong Kong freezing orders can be registered or recognised in cooperating jurisdictions, and applicants frequently issue parallel preservation letters to banks in Singapore, London and other financial centres where the respondent may hold accounts. Early coordination with international arbitration counsel in those jurisdictions is essential.

After the Order, Policing, Enforcement, Variation and Discharge

Obtaining a freezing order is only the first step. Effective policing of the order requires sustained attention to compliance, documentation and court engagement.

• Bank notification. Serve a copy of the sealed order on every bank and financial institution where the respondent is known to hold accounts. Follow up in writing to confirm receipt and compliance.
• Asset disclosure. Monitor the respondent’s compliance with any asset disclosure obligation contained in the order. If the respondent fails to swear the required affidavit by the deadline, apply promptly for contempt proceedings.
• Return date preparation. The respondent will have the opportunity to challenge the order at the return date. Prepare supplementary evidence addressing any new facts, and anticipate arguments on full and frank disclosure, proportionality and the adequacy of the undertaking as to damages.
• Variation and discharge. Either party may apply to vary or discharge the order on a change of circumstances. Grounds for discharge include material non-disclosure at the ex parte stage, absence of a good arguable case, or failure to demonstrate a continuing risk of dissipation.
• Contempt sanctions. Breach of a freezing order, by the respondent or by a notified third party, is punishable as contempt of court, which may result in a fine or imprisonment.

Strategic Options and Alternatives, Choosing the Right Type of Freezing Injunction

Not every case calls for a full Mareva injunction. Depending on the nature and location of the assets at risk, practitioners should consider whether a more targeted form of relief would be proportionate and effective. The table below summarises the principal options available in Hong Kong.

Where the primary concern is the preservation of documentary or electronic evidence rather than financial assets, an Anton Piller order (search and seizure) may be more appropriate. In practice, freezing injunctions and search orders are sometimes sought in combination, particularly in fraud cases. Strategic guidance from specialists in international commercial dispute resolution is essential before selecting the form of relief.

Conclusion

Knowing how to get a freezing injunction, and how to execute the application efficiently, can mean the difference between recovering assets and watching them disappear. Hong Kong’s courts have demonstrated, through landmark 2025–2026 decisions on worldwide Mareva orders and interim receivers, that the jurisdiction offers powerful tools for creditors and award holders facing dissipation risk. Success depends on early preparation, rigorous evidence of dissipation, meticulous drafting and full compliance with the duty of full and frank disclosure. Practitioners who invest in these fundamentals will find that Hong Kong remains one of the most effective forums in the world for securing interim relief and protecting the fruits of litigation and arbitration.

This article is intended as a general guide to how to get a freezing injunction in Hong Kong and does not constitute legal advice. Specific situations require tailored analysis by qualified dispute resolution counsel. For urgent advisory support or to discuss your enforcement strategy, contact a Hong Kong dispute resolution specialist through the Global Law Experts lawyer directory.

Sources

1. Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer, Hong Kong Court Grants Worldwide Freezing Orders and Appoints Interim Receivers
2. BCLP, HK Court Grants Worldwide Mareva and Appoints Interim Receivers
3. HKIAC, Interim Measures Arrangement FAQs
4. Department of Justice, Hong Kong, Article on Interim Measures in Arbitration
5. Ministry of Justice (UK), Model Order for a Freezing Injunction
6. Bird & Bird, Attachment (Freezing) Orders in Hong Kong: Overview
7. Fieldfisher, Freezing Injunction Insights: The Benefit of Orders Freezing Single or Specific Assets
8. Clifford Chance, Freezing Injunctions in Aid of Foreign Proceedings
9. Global Arbitration Review, Challenging and Enforcing Arbitration Awards: Hong Kong