Cross-border injunctive and declaratory relief

Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis

STOP PRESS: On 6 April 2025, amendments to Part 25 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR 25) will come into force. For guidance on the changes to Part 25 and Practice Directions 25A and 25B, see Q&A: Where can I find information on the changes to Part 25 coming into force on 6 April 2025?

There are a number of injunctive or declaratory reliefs available for proceedings involving cross-border disputes. These include freezing injunctions (including proprietary freezing injunctions), anti-suit injunctions, anti-enforcement injunctions, preservation orders, imaging orders and declarations/declaratory relief (including negative declarations and declarations that may impact foreign proceedings). For guidance, see Practice Note: Cross-border injunctive and declaratory relief—a guide for dispute resolution practitioners.

Freezing injunctions

A freezing injunction or order (formerly called a Mareva injunction, a term which may be seen in the older authorities) is an interim order which prevents the person subject to the order from dealing with or disposing of their assets in a way designed to prevent enforcement of an existing or potential future judgment. It will generally take effect in respect of all the respondent’s

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Existing user? Sign-in TAKE A FREE TRIAL
Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Dispute Resolution News

MoJ announces interim chair appointment to Legal Services Board

The Ministry of Justice and the Legal Services Board have announced that the Lord Chancellor has approved the appointment of Catherine Brown as Interim Chair of the Legal Services Board (LSB) and the Legal Services Board Wales, effective until 31 December 2025. This appointment, made under the Legal Services Act 2007 after consulting the Lady Chief Justice, is regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, ensuring the LSB has a Chair during the recruitment process. Brown, who has served on the LSB board since 2019 as both Audit and Risk Assurance Committee Chair and Senior Independent Director, brings experience from roles including CEO of the Food Standards Agency and Chair of the Enforcement Conduct Board.

Variation of budget after trial, oppressive behavior, Part 36, and a payment on account of costs (Barry & Barry v Barry)

Dispute Resolution analysis: In this case, the court considered various points, including the claimants’ variation of a budget after trial, whether the claimants should be entitled to the benefits of CPR 36.17(4) having beaten their own Part 36 offers and the appropriate amount for a payment on account of costs. The court allowed an upward variation in relation to the trial preparation and trial, as the application had been made promptly and given there had been a significant development. However, the court rejected the upward variations for disclosure and witness evidence on the basis that the applications had not been made promptly and the claimants could not establish any oppressive behavior by the defendant. The court was not satisfied that it would be unjust to award the claimants the usual benefits of CPR 36.17(4) where they had made a reasonable offer before the proceedings had been issued. The claimants demonstrated a genuine intention to resolve the dispute. By contrast, the defendant showed no such intent. The court then awarded the claimants 55% of their incurred costs, 90% of the original budgeted costs and 80% of the upward variations. Written by Nicholas Lee, costs lawyer & mediator at Paragon Costs Solutions.

Master of the Rolls delivers speech on AI and Article 6 ECHR

The Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos has delivered a speech at the Human Rights, Algorithmic Justice and Global AI Policy Conference at Durham University, addressing the potential need to amend the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) to protect human rights in the age of advanced AI. Vos highlighted the evolving acceptance of technology in society and questioned whether machines should make decisions traditionally made by humans, such as in judicial contexts. He noted the EU's AI Act, which classifies AI systems used in judicial decision-making as ‘High Risk AI systems’ and contrasted this with the more accepting stance of countries like China. Vos raised three key issues: the distinction between judicial and other decision-making; the difference between judicial decision-making and legal advice; and the rights needed to ensure just and fair decision-making in addition to Article 6 of the ECHR. He argued that judicial decisions are unique as they are the final recourse for individuals and businesses and expressed scepticism about AI being considered an ‘independent and impartial tribunal’ under Article 6. Vos concluded by emphasising the need for ongoing debate on the appropriate use of AI in judicial decision-making and the protection of human rights in this context.

CJC Futures Group report recommends digital inclusion strategy and AI safeguards

The Civil Justice Council (CJC) Futures Working Group has published a report on examining digital disadvantage in the justice system. The report recommends reframing the issue as ‘digital inclusion’ and creating a central strategy hub focused on accessibility and inclusive design. It addresses Artificial Intelligence (AI) integration, emphasising the need for safeguards against AI errors and maintaining non-digital access options. The report calls for cross-sector collaboration between public, private and third sectors to develop digital services while preserving access to justice for digitally disadvantaged users.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :  
News
Practice notes
Precedents
Q&As

Popular documents

Applicable law—common law (contract)

Applicable law—common law (contract)This Practice Note sets out when the common law of England and Wales applies to determine the applicable law in respect of contract claims. It sets out the process by which the courts of England and Wales will apply the common law to determine which law is

Determining whether the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction

Determining whether the courts of England and Wales have jurisdictionThis Practice Note provides an overview into the issues the court will consider during applications in which a party either seeks to establish or to challenge the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales. Key elements are

Cross-border enforcement—CJJA 1982 and submission to the foreign court's jurisdiction

Cross-border enforcement—CJJA 1982 and submission to the foreign court's jurisdictionThis Practice Note considers the position under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (CJJA 1982) where enforcement proceedings for a foreign judgment are brought in the courts of England and Wales and there

Jurisdiction agreements—exclusive jurisdiction agreements

Jurisdiction agreements—exclusive jurisdiction agreementsThis Practice Note considers exclusive jurisdiction agreements (also known as choice of court agreements). Specific considerations as to the construction, effect and enforcement of this type of jurisdiction agreements are discussed.For
Applicable law—common law (contract)

Applicable law—common law (contract)

Applicable law—common law (contract)This Practice Note sets out when the common law of England and Wales applies to determine the applicable law in respect of contract claims. It sets out the process by which the courts of England and Wales will apply the common law to determine which law is

Determining whether the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction

Determining whether the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction

Determining whether the courts of England and Wales have jurisdictionThis Practice Note provides an overview into the issues the court will consider during applications in which a party either seeks to establish or to challenge the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales. Key elements are

Cross-border enforcement—CJJA 1982 and submission to the foreign court's jurisdiction

Cross-border enforcement—CJJA 1982 and submission to the foreign court's jurisdiction

Cross-border enforcement—CJJA 1982 and submission to the foreign court's jurisdictionThis Practice Note considers the position under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (CJJA 1982) where enforcement proceedings for a foreign judgment are brought in the courts of England and Wales and there

Jurisdiction agreements—exclusive jurisdiction agreements

Jurisdiction agreements—exclusive jurisdiction agreements

Jurisdiction agreements—exclusive jurisdiction agreementsThis Practice Note considers exclusive jurisdiction agreements (also known as choice of court agreements). Specific considerations as to the construction, effect and enforcement of this type of jurisdiction agreements are discussed.For