Case studies

"Although cost was an important factor, our relationship with LexisNexis, their responsiveness, flexibility, and the integration available with other products were key factors."

Irwin Mitchell

Access all 33 documents on Freezing injunction

GET ACCESS NOW

GLOSSARY

Freezing injunction definition

Published by a LexisNexis Banking & Finance expert

What does Freezing injunction mean?

A freezing injunction is an interim order by the court restraining a party from removing assets in a jurisdiction or restraining a party from dealing with any located within or outside the jurisdiction.

Formerly, freezing injunctions were called Mareva injunctions, coming from Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulkcarriers SA, The Mareva [1980] 1 All ER 213n, CA. Such an injunction was first granted in Nippon Yusen Kaisha v Karageorgis [1975] 3 All ER 282, [1975] 1 WLR 1093, CA. The rationale of the court's jurisdiction is to prevent judgments of the court from being rendered ineffective, whether by the removal of the defendant's assets from the jurisdiction, or by dissipation. But it has been decided that banks owe no duty of care to ensure that funds held in accounts which are the subject of a freezing order are not dissipated, although they may be guilty of a contempt of court if the circumstances justify it: the freezing injunction is not justified merely to improve the position of the claimant in an insolvency nor is it

Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.

Issues in cryptoasset related civil claims—checklist

Issues in cryptoasset related civil claims—checklist This Checklist on cryptoassets considers issues for dispute resolution lawyers to consider when dealing with claims involving cryptoassets. It considers the key procedural issues involved in pursuing a civil claim where cryptoassets (usually their recovery) are in some way involved. The particular intangible and international nature of cryptocurrencies, which allows parties to exploit the asset and move it around the globe into less favourable jurisdictions, has made them ripe for misappropriation and theft and, to date, the caselaw in this area has almost exclusively been concerned with the recovery of stolen cryptocurrencies. Such decisions have thus far been at an interlocutory level only, however, the English courts have demonstrated a willingness to show flexibility in approach and to utilise the full panoply of procedures and rules at its disposal to facilitate effective attempts at civil recovery. One of your first tasks, whatever the factual scenario involved in a civil claim, is to identify the parties involved (which can be a particularly difficult exercise), the...

Freezing injunctions and the impact of Brexit—checklist [Archived]

Freezing injunctions and the impact of Brexit—checklist [Archived] ARCHIVED: This Checklist has been archived and is not maintained. This Checklist is designed to draw attention to the potential impact of Brexit on freezing injunctions and is a starting point to consider key points when applying for or enforcing a freezing order. Cases in which a freezing injunction might be appropriate often involve a cross border element—for example, the defendant being based or having assets located outside of England and Wales or the underlying claim involving allegations of wrongful conduct that concerns a number of different jurisdictions. The UK’s departure from the EU, when dealing with freezing injunctions, has the potential to impact the following: • establishing the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales • service of documents outside England and Wales • enforcing freezing orders outside England and Wales • obtaining freezing injunctions in support of foreign proceedings The following should be noted: • the rules governing jurisdiction, service and enforcement are technical and complex. Links to detailed...

Discover our 2 Checklists on Freezing injunction

Interim injunctions—variation, discharge and appeals

Interim injunctions—variation, discharge and appeals This Practice Note provides guidance on the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the CPR. Depending on the court in which your matter is proceeding, you may also need to be mindful of additional provisions—see further: Court specific guidance below. This Practice Note explains the circumstances in which an interim injunction may come to an end (whether through expiry or discharge) or be varied, as well as considering whether it is possible to vary undertakings. It also briefly addresses appeals in the context of interim injunctions. For general guidance on injunctions, see: Interim and final injunctions—overview, as well as: • Practice Note: Interim injunctions—the American Cyanamid guidelines • Practice Note: Injunctions—key and illustrative decisions (September 2019–2024) [Archived] • Opposing an on notice interim injunction application—checklist • Opposing a without notice interim injunction application—checklist 6 April 2025 changes The CPR provisions relevant to interim injunctive relief were amended with effect from 6 April 2025. In particular, CPR 25 was revised extensively and...

Transactions defrauding creditors—claims under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986

Transactions defrauding creditors—claims under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 Section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) allows for the avoidance of transactions which were designed to defraud creditors. Its provisions are intended to prevent parties from disposing of assets so as to frustrate creditors. A claim can be brought under IA 1986, s 423 against a company or individual following a transaction at an undervalue (TUV) which was undertaken with the purpose of putting assets beyond the reach of creditors. While there are similarities with a TUV under IA 1986, s 238 (in the context of corporate insolvency) and IA 1986, s 339 (in the context of personal insolvency), these are the key differences: • recovery under IA 1986, s 423 does not necessarily involve formal insolvency proceedings • the purpose of the transaction is key under IA 1986, s 423, whereas the purpose of the transaction under IA 1986, ss 238 and 339 is not relevant • under IA 1986,...

Discover our 19 Practice Notes on Freezing injunction

Draft order for a worldwide freezing injunction (WFO)—Chancery Division

Draft order for a worldwide freezing injunction (WFO)—Chancery Division Claim No. [insert claim number] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE [BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS [OF ENGLAND AND WALES OR IN [insert location]] ] [Specify specialist court] (ChD) before [The Honourable Mr Justice OR The Honourable Mrs Justice] [insert name of judge] [(sitting in private)] Dated: [insert date of order] between: [insert name(s) of Applicant(s)] Applicant(s) — and — [insert name(s) of Respondent(s)] Respondent(s) [The Claimant and Defendant in an Intended Action] _______________________________________ draft FREEZING order _______________________________________ PENAL NOTICE If you [insert name of respondent] disobey this order you may be held to be in contempt of court and may be imprisoned, fined or have your assets seized. Any other person who knows of this order and does anything which helps or permits the Respondent to breach the terms of this order may also be held to be in contempt of court and may be imprisoned, fined or have their assets seized....

Draft order for a domestic freezing injunction—Chancery Division

Draft order for a domestic freezing injunction—Chancery Division Claim No. [insert claim number] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE [BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS [OF ENGLAND AND WALES OR IN [insert location]] ] [Specify specialist court] (ChD) before [The Honourable Mr Justice OR The Honourable Mrs Justice] [insert name of judge] [(sitting in private)] Dated: [insert date of order] between: [insert name(s) of Applicant(s)] Applicant(s) — and — [insert name(s) of Respondent(s)] Respondent(s) [The Claimant and Defendant in an Intended Action] _______________________________________ draft FREEZING order _______________________________________ PENAL NOTICE If you [insert name of respondent] disobey this order you may be held to be in contempt of court and may be imprisoned, fined or have your assets seized. Any other person who knows of this order and does anything which helps or permits the Respondent to breach the terms of this order may also be held to be in contempt of court and may be imprisoned, fined or have their assets seized. 1...

Dive into our 5 Precedents related to Freezing injunction

Where can I find information on the changes to Part 25 coming into force on 6 April 2025?

Where can I find information on the changes to Part 25 coming into force on 6 April 2025? This Q&A provides information on the changes that are in force from Sunday, 6 April 2025 concerning CPR 25 as well as the revocation of its related Practice Directions 25A and 25B. Reference and links to the new provisions and model orders in force from 6 April 2025 (which replaced the standard orders for freezing injunctions, search orders and imaging orders that had been included in annexes to Practice Direction 25A) are provided together with links to the pre-6 April 2025 provisions. On Sunday 6 April 2025, the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2025, SI 2025/106, reg 7 came into force which had provided for CPR 25 to be substituted in its entirety with the wording set out in the Schedule to those regulations. There were no transitional provisions associated with the changes. The 179th Making document setting out changes to practice directions was published on 7 February 2025. This confirmed that both...

Where company C is a wholly-owned subsidiary of company B, which in turn is a wholly-owned subsidiary of company A, can you enforce a judgment debt which you have obtained against company A by seeking to charge the shares of company C?

Where company C is a wholly-owned subsidiary of company B, which in turn is a wholly-owned subsidiary of company A, can you enforce a judgment debt which you have obtained against company A by seeking to charge the shares of company C? In answering this Q&A we have limited our research to cover enforcing by way of charging an interest in securities. We assume it is sought to charge company shares on the basis the judgment debtor has an indirect interest in them. In conducting our research we have focussed on enforcement by way of charging an interest in securities. Charging order on beneficial interest Under section 2 of the Charging Orders Act 1979 (COA 1979): '(1) Subject to subsection (3) below, a charge may be imposed by a charging order only on— (a) any interest held by the debtor beneficially— (i) in any asset of a kind mentioned in subsection (2) below…' '(2) The assets referred to in subsection (1) above are—… … (b) securities...

See the 2 Q&As about Freezing injunction

Dispute Resolution weekly highlights—15 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 Solicitors Regulation Authority’s consultation on its 2025/26 Business Plan and the Court of Appeal decision in Leadingway Consultants Ltd v Saab (relief from sanctions); dates for your diary; details of our most recently published content; and other information of general interest to dispute resolution practitioners.

The availability of proprietary injunctions in antecedent transaction claims in insolvency proceedings (Khan v Goldfarb)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The High Court dismissed an appeal by a party who had been made subject to a proprietary injunction prior to service of proceedings issued under sections 339 and 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) by which a trustee in bankruptcy sought to recover a number of properties for the benefit of the insolvent estate on the basis that the disposition of the properties amounted to transactions at an undervalue and/or transactions defrauding creditors. In dismissing the appeal, the High Court provided helpful confirmation that it was sufficient for an applicant for a proprietary injunction to be seeking proprietary relief for the court’s jurisdiction to grant such relief to be engaged as well as also holding that the fact that a party was seeking direction that transfers be declared void by way of the substantive proceedings was also sufficient. Written by James Hannant, barrister at Guildhall Chambers.

Read the latest 7 News articles on Freezing injunction