Introduction

A freezing order or injunction (formerly known as a Mareva injunction) is a court order to stop a defendant from disposing of or hiding assets. It is a powerful interim remedy intended to preserve assets pending judgment, without determining anyone’s rights. Because it is drastic and invasive, courts impose strict requirements on applicants. In England and Wales, freezing injunctions are authorised by Civil Procedure Rule 25 and the Senior Courts Act 1981. Only a High Court judge or a specifically authorised Circuit Judge may grant a freezing injunction.

Scope of Assets

A freezing injunction can cover almost any type of asset, bank accounts, real estate, shares, vehicles, or even cryptocurrency. Typically, the order stops the defendant from removing assets from England and Wales or otherwise dissipating assets anywhere. An injunction may be limited to assets within England and Wales (a domestic order) or extend worldwide. A Worldwide Freezing Order (WFO) reaches assets globally. If a worldwide order is granted, the claimant must usually agree not to enforce it abroad without the court’s permission. In some cases, the court can even freeze assets held via third parties for the defendant (a “Chabra” injunction). For example, assets held in the name of a shell company or trustee under the defendant’s control can be frozen if the defendant effectively controls them.

Purpose

The purpose of a freezing injunction is to prevent the defendant from frustrating a future judgment by hiding or dissipating assets. It is not a tool to secure the claim or pressure the defendant; the court will only freeze assets to the extent necessary to protect against the risk of dissipation. To avoid oppression, orders typically cap the total value of assets frozen (often around the claim amount plus interest and costs) and include exceptions so the defendant can pay for ordinary living expenses and business costs. This ensures the order preserves assets for a potential judgment while allowing the defendant to continue normal life and business as far as possible.

Criteria for Granting a Freezing injunction

To obtain a freezing injunction a claimant must satisfy several key conditions:

• Good arguable case – The claimant must have a strong, credible cause of action against the defendant (not a speculative or weak claim). There should be a real prospect of success on the merits. For example, if alleging fraud, there must be clear evidence of it, not just suspicion.
• Real risk of asset dissipation – There must be solid evidence that the defendant is likely to hide or dissipate assets before judgment if not restrained. This is the core of freezing injunction. Specific facts should indicate a real risk (e.g. recent secret transfers or stated intentions to move assets). A general fear or the mere fact the defendant has assets overseas is not enough. If the defendant has a stable presence and a history of meeting obligations, the court may view the dissipation risk as low.
• Just and convenient – It must be just and convenient to grant the order. The court balances the risk of injustice to the claimant (if assets vanish and a judgment goes unsatisfied) against the injustice to the defendant (if their assets are unjustifiably frozen). The injunction should be proportionate. Any delay by the claimant or lack of candour can tip the balance against granting it.
• Evidence – All the above requirements must be backed by concrete evidence (usually in a sworn statement with documents). General allegations won’t suffice. Any factual doubts at this stage tend to be resolved in the defendant’s favour, so the claimant’s evidence should be as clear and compelling as possible.
• Full and frank disclosure – For a without-notice application, the claimant must disclose all material facts to the court, including any that might be unfavourable to the claimant. Failure to disclose something important can lead to the injunction being discharged later, regardless of the merits.

Procedure for Applying

Most applications for a freezing injunction are made without notice (ex parte) to the defendant initially, to avoid alerting them and prompting asset flight. The process typically involves two stages:

1. Without notice application – The claimant applies without notifying the defendant (to prevent asset flight), filing an application notice supported by a detailed affidavit of facts and evidence. A draft order (using the mandatory Model Freezing Injunction Order introduced in April 2025) is provided to the judge, and any deviations must be explained and justified. The application is usually heard by a judge in private. The claimant’s lawyer must present all relevant facts candidly and give a cross undertaking in damages (promising to compensate the defendant if the injunction later proves unjustified). If the application is made before the claim is issued, the claimant must also undertake to issue and serve the claim promptly. The court will only grant the order if satisfied that the claimant has a good arguable case, there is a real risk of dissipation, and the situation is urgent and warrants proceeding ex parte.
2. Service of order – Once granted, the freezing order and supporting evidence must be served on the defendant immediately (usually in person). Often an independent solicitor (a “supervising solicitor”) is used to serve and explain the order’s terms to the defendant. Relevant third parties (e.g. banks) should also be notified promptly so they can freeze any assets and avoid assisting a breach. The order binds the defendant from the moment it is made (or upon service, if made without notice), and third parties from when they receive notice.
3. Return hearing – The order will include a return date (typically 1–2 weeks later) when the defendant can come to court to challenge it. At this inter partes hearing, the court will reconsider the injunction with the benefit of the defendant’s evidence. The defendant may argue for the order to be discharged or varied, and can offer undertakings (e.g. a promise not to dissipate assets) as an alternative to the injunction. The court may then continue, modify, or discharge the freezing order. If it continues, the injunction usually remains in force until trial or further order.

Form and Content of the Freezing injunction

Freezing orders in England and Wales follow a standard format set out in the April 2025 Model Freezing Injunction Order. Key features of a typical freezing injunction include:

• Maximum sum frozen – The order will specify a maximum value of assets that are frozen (usually the claim amount plus interest and costs). The defendant is only restrained from reducing assets below that value; assets above the cap remain free. This ensures the freeze is proportionate and not overly oppressive.
• Geographical scope – The order will state if it is domestic (covering assets in England and Wales) or a Worldwide Freezing Order (WFO) (covering assets globally). A WFO extends the freeze abroad, but typically includes a provision that the claimant will not enforce the order in foreign courts without permission, to respect other jurisdictions.
• Exceptions for expenses – Standard orders allow the defendant to spend specified amounts for ordinary living expenses and to pay reasonable legal fees, despite the freeze. The defendant may also be permitted to deal with assets in the ordinary course of business (e.g. paying employees or suppliers) and to use assets with the claimant’s consent or court permission. These exceptions prevent the order from unduly stifling the defendant’s normal life or business.
• Disclosure of assets – The defendant is required to disclose their assets, usually by providing a sworn statement of assets (above a set value) within days of being served. This typically includes details of all significant assets worldwide. The disclosure helps the claimant and court know what assets are available and ensures compliance. Not providing the disclosure is a contempt of court.
• Claimant’s undertakings – The order records undertakings given by the claimant to the court (such as the cross-undertaking in damages to compensate the defendant if the injunction turns out to be wrongful, an undertaking to serve the order promptly, and an undertaking not to use information obtained under the order for any purpose outside these proceedings without court permission). If the court required the claimant to provide security (to “fortify” the undertaking), that will be noted. The claimant must comply with all undertakings or risk the injunction being discharged.

Claimant’s Duties and Obligations

Obtaining a freezing injunction comes with ongoing responsibilities for the claimant and their legal team. The court expects the claimant to act with utmost candour, fairness, and diligence while the order is in force. Important duties include:

• Continue full disclosure – The obligation to disclose all important facts continues after the injunction is granted. If the claimant later discovers that something material was omitted or misrepresented to the court, they must inform the court (and the defendant) immediately. Serious failure to disclose relevant information, even accidentally, can lead to the injunction being discharged at the return hearing. The claimant must approach the court with complete candour at all times.
• Pursue the case diligently – The claimant must move the main claim forward quickly. The freezing injunction is meant to prevent asset dissipation pending the outcome, not to give the claimant leverage or time to stall. Any unreasonable delay or misuse of the order (for example, slowing the case to pressure the defendant) can result in the court lifting the injunction and possibly penalising the claimant. The claimant should treat the case as urgent and avoid any abuse of the court’s trust.
• Honour the cross-undertaking – If it later emerges that the freezing order should not have been granted (for instance, if the claimant’s case fails or the injunction is discharged), the claimant will be expected to compensate the defendant for losses caused by the injunction. This comes under the claimant’s cross undertaking in damages. The claimant must be prepared to fulfil this obligation and provide any security the court required for it (e.g. a payment into court).
• Be fair and flexible – The claimant should not enforce the injunction beyond what is necessary. If circumstances change (e.g. the defendant offers adequate security or it becomes clear the risk of dissipation has reduced), the claimant should consent to appropriately vary or discharge the order. Insisting on a freeze that is no longer needed is viewed negatively by the court. It’s better for the claimant to agree to relax the injunction when justified than for the court to revoke it (with potential cost consequences) due to the claimant’s inflexibility.

Defendant’s Rights and Options

A defendant subject to a freezing injunction is under significant restrictions, but they have protections and options to mitigate the order’s impact. These include:

• Access to basic funds – The standard freezing order allows the defendant to spend limited amounts for normal living expenses and business running costs. If the set allowance is too low for a necessary expense, the defendant can ask the court to increase it or permit a one-off payment (for example, for medical bills or taxes). Courts will generally approve reasonable expenses that do not undermine the injunction’s purpose. The defendant should, where possible, get the claimant’s agreement for adjustments to avoid unnecessary court hearings.
• Legal expenses – The defendant is also allowed to use frozen funds to pay for legal representation. Usually the order permits a “reasonable” sum to be spent on lawyers to defend the case. If the claimant suspects abuse (for instance, an excessive amount claimed as legal fees), the court can demand an explanation or proof of how the money is being used. However, the principle is that the defendant must be able to fund their defence – a freezing order cannot be used to shut the defendant out of justice.
• Varying or discharging the order – The defendant has the right to apply to the court at any time to change (vary) or cancel (discharge) the freezing injunction. They do not need to wait for the scheduled return hearing. Common requests include raising the spending limits, excluding certain assets (for example, to permit sale of an asset with the sale proceeds remaining frozen), or discharging the order entirely if the claimant’s case or evidence of risk is weak. The court will revisit whether the injunction is necessary in light of the defendant’s evidence. If the grounds for the order are no longer solid (or never were, due to non-disclosure or lack of evidence), the court may lift or relax the freeze.
• Offering security – The defendant can propose a security arrangement to replace the freezing order. For example, the defendant might pay money into court or provide a bank guarantee for the amount in dispute. If this gives the claimant sufficient protection (ensuring funds will be available to satisfy a judgment), the court will likely discharge the injunction. Providing security can be a win-win: the claimant is assured of a fund, and the defendant regains flexibility over their assets.
• Defending on the merits – The freezing injunction does not determine the outcome of the claim. The defendant is free to defend the claim fully. The case will proceed to trial (or possibly a summary judgment application), and the claimant must prove their case in the normal way. If the defendant succeeds in defeating the claim, whether by winning at trial or getting the claim thrown out earlier, the freezing injunction will end. In that event, the claimant will likely have to compensate the defendant under the cross-undertaking for any loss caused by the injunction.

Duration and Discharge of the Injunction

A freezing injunction usually remains in force until trial or further order of the court, but several events can change its status:

• If the claimant wins the case – If the claimant ultimately obtains a judgment in their favour, the freezing injunction will normally continue until that judgment is enforced or paid. It remains in place to prevent the defendant from dissipating assets during the enforcement process. Once the judgment is satisfied, the injunction will be lifted, as it is no longer needed.
• If the defendant wins the case – If the claim is dismissed or the defendant prevails at trial (or the claimant drops the case), the freezing injunction will be discharged immediately. The claimant will then face the consequences of the cross-undertaking in damages: the defendant can claim compensation for losses caused by the injunction. The court will assess those losses (e.g. lost income or expenses due to the freeze) and order the claimant to pay the appropriate amount. The claimant will also usually be liable for the defendant’s legal costs.
• Early discharge or variation – The court can lift or modify a freezing injunction at any time before trial if it becomes unnecessary or unjust. For example, if the defendant provides satisfactory security for the claim, or if evidence shows the defendant’s assets are no longer at risk, the injunction may be discharged without waiting for trial. The order will not continue longer than needed, it can be adjusted or canceled whenever the justification for it falls away.
• Post-judgment orders – In some cases, a claimant who wins a judgment may seek a new freezing injunction after judgment, if there is concern the defendant will move assets before the judgment can be enforced. The claimant must still show a real risk of dissipation. Such post judgment freezing orders are generally short-lived; the court expects the claimant to move quickly with enforcement action, and the freeze will usually be lifted once enforcement measures are in place or the defendant cooperates with payment.

Enforcement and Consequences of Breach

Breaching a freezing injunction is a serious matter. If a defendant deliberately violates the order (for example, by concealing or transferring assets in defiance of it), they can be held in contempt of court. This can lead to imprisonment, fines, or seizure of assets. Third parties who have notice of the order (such as banks) must also not assist in any breach; a bank served with the order will typically freeze affected accounts. The claimant should monitor the defendant’s compliance and only resort to contempt proceedings for clear and serious breaches, often, raising concerns or giving a warning can resolve minor issues.

Finally, if it turns out the injunction was wrongly granted, the claimant will have to compensate the defendant for any losses under the cross-undertaking in damages. Courts will enforce this undertaking, so claimants risk a heavy financial penalty if the freeze was not warranted.

Practical Guidance and Best Practices

Finally, some practical tips for those dealing with freezing injunctions:

• Meet the requirements – Ensure you have a strong case and solid evidence of a real risk of dissipation before applying. Prepare your evidence thoroughly and use the April 2025 Model Freezing Injunction Order as now required. The court will closely scrutinise both the merits and the procedure of your application.
• Consider the undertaking – A claimant should not seek a freezing injunction lightly. Be mindful that if the injunction is later found unwarranted, you must compensate the defendant. Only apply if you genuinely believe in your case and are prepared for that financial risk. Defendants, keep records of how the order impacts you (e.g. lost business or extra costs) to support any claim for damages later.
• Draft the order carefully – Tailor the scope of the freeze to what is necessary. Do not overreach by freezing more assets than needed or by being overly restrictive. A proportionate, well focused order is more likely to be granted and upheld.
• Use disclosure & monitor – If you obtain the order, make good use of the defendant’s asset disclosure. Scrutinise it for hidden assets or inconsistencies. Monitor the defendant’s compliance with the order, but enforce judiciously. Don’t rush to accuse the defendant of contempt over minor issues, try to resolve them amicably if possible, and reserve court enforcement for serious, wilful breaches.
• Stay flexible and cooperative – Both parties should remain pragmatic. If the defendant needs a reasonable modification (for example, to unfreeze a particular account or sell an asset with safeguards), the claimant should consider agreeing. Likewise, as time goes on, reassess whether the injunction is still needed. If the defendant has provided security or is cooperating in good faith, the claimant should be open to relaxing or releasing the order. Showing flexibility and reasonableness will be viewed favorably by the court and can save costs.

Conclusion

In conclusion, freezing injunctions are powerful tools to preserve assets for judgment, but they must be used carefully. A claimant who obtains such an order bears strict duties of candour and must pursue the case diligently, while a defendant has protections to ensure the order is fair. Ultimately, a properly managed freezing injunction can make the difference between a hollow victory and an enforceable judgment, but any abuse of this remedy will be swiftly checked by the courts.