Freezing injunctions

6 April 2025 changes

The CPR provisions relevant to interim injunctive relief, including freezing orders, were amended with effect from 6 April 2025. In particular, CPR 25 was revised extensively and the accompanying Practice Directions, including the example draft freezing order included in Annex A of Practice Direction 25A, were revoked. In its place, a new model order for a freezing injunction came into force on 6 April 2025.

The changes were not intended to materially alter the substantive law or practice. However, the numbering and location of many of the provisions were changed. Case law and commentary which pre-dates 6 April 2025 should therefore be approached with some caution as they may refer to the old provisions, numbering and standard order.

For further background, including links to the provisions in force prior to 6 April 2025, see:

•
Q&A: Where can I find information on the changes to Part 25 coming into force on 6 April 2025?
•
Practice Note: Interim remedies—CPR Part 25, Practice Direction 25A and Practice Direction 25B—destination and derivation tables

For the avoidance of doubt, references in this subtopic to:

•
‘CPR 25.1’

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

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Dispute Resolution News

Dispute Resolution weekly highlights—22 May 2025

This week's edition of Dispute Resolution weekly highlights includes: analysis of a number of key DR developments and key judicial decisions including the Online Procedure Rule Committee minutes of 14 April 2025 and the Court of Appeal decision in Shorts International Ltd v Google LLC (costs capping order); dates for your diary; details of our most recently published content; and other information of general interest to dispute resolution practitioners.

Russian litigants flock to UK courts after record slump

Law360, London: The number of Russian litigants using London's commercial courts has more than doubled in the past year and could be a signal that sanctions have had little long-term impact on judgments, an advisory firm reported 20 May 2025.

Commercial contracts—renunciation, affirmation, and guarantees (Chugga Chugg v Privinvest)

Commercial analysis: The High Court ruled against Privinvest in a dispute over a parent company guarantee relating to a luxury yacht construction contract. The case provides valuable guidance on contract renunciation, affirmation and interpretation of guarantee clauses. The court held that discussions about potential termination did not constitute a 'clear and unequivocal' renunciation, that subsequent conduct affirmed the contract, and that a claim admitted in German insolvency remained 'contested' for guarantee enforcement purposes. The judgment offers practical insights into how commercial negotiations and conduct affect contractual rights and obligations in high-value commercial relationships. Written by Katie Chandler, Partner, Head of Disputes & Investigations UK and Natalia Faekova (senior associate) at Taylor Wessing LLP.

SCTS updates guidance on expense claims in undefended Simple Procedure Actions

The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) has published updated guidance on claiming expenses in undefended Simple Procedure actions, following the recent Sheriff Appeal Court opinion in Cabot v Walls. Claimants are now required to submit a detailed account of any expenses to the court before a decision can be made. A pro forma is available for claimants without legal representation.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :

News