A freezing injunction is one of the most powerful interim remedies available to civil litigants in English law. Its purpose is to preserve the status quo: to prevent a defendant from moving, spending or otherwise disposing of assets so that, if the claimant wins, there is something left to enforce against. The order typically operates over named assets — specific accounts, property, shareholdings — or over the respondent's worldwide assets up to a specified value.
Applications are typically made without notice (ex parte), meaning the respondent does not know until the order is served. Speed and secrecy are essential: a respondent who anticipates the application can dissipate or transfer assets before the order takes effect. This is why the quality of prior asset tracing is decisive — the court will require the applicant to identify the assets with sufficient particularity, and the tracing investigation must have produced that evidence without alerting the subject.
To obtain a freezing injunction, the applicant must satisfy the court on three points: a good arguable case on the merits, a real risk that the respondent will dissipate assets if not restrained, and that the balance of convenience favours granting the order. The applicant must also give a cross-undertaking in damages — accepting liability if the order later proves to have been wrongly granted. The intelligence underpinning the application must be credible, sourced and capable of withstanding scrutiny: courts take a dim view of applications built on supposition. Once granted, the order is enforced through the contempt jurisdiction — breach can result in committal. Judgment enforcement against the frozen assets follows once the main proceedings are determined.
One confidential message is enough. Tell us only what you are comfortable sharing — we take it from there.
Make a confidential enquiry