Applications to restrain future dealing—MCA 1973, s 37
Produced in partnership with David Salter of Mills & Reeve
Applications to restrain future dealing—MCA 1973, s 37

The following Family guidance note Produced in partnership with David Salter of Mills & Reeve provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • Applications to restrain future dealing—MCA 1973, s 37
  • Securing assets
  • Practical considerations
  • Jurisdiction
  • Form of application
  • Applications without notice
  • Service and the status of third parties
  • Types of order that can be made
  • What does intention to defeat the claim mean?
  • Undertakings
  • more

Great care should be taken when dealing with an application to preserve assets. An ill-conceived, badly prepared application or one that does not carefully follow procedure may result in an adverse order for costs (including wasted costs), see: Practical considerations. In UL v BK (Freezing Orders: Safeguards: Standard Examples), Mostyn J said of the case before him:

'This is not a wholly exceptional case. Things have gone seriously wrong. It is therefore necessary for me to set out once again the elementary principles, derived from legion authorities, in the hope that the approach adopted here never again recurs.'

Mostyn J went on to re-emphasise guidance on:

  1. the law to be applied in relation to freezing orders, see: Securing assets

  2. practice and procedure, see: Service and the status of third parties and Types of order that can be made

  3. applications made without notice, see: Form of application, and

  4. illegitimately obtained documents (per Imerman v Tchenguiz), see: Procedural aspects of disclosure in financial proceedings — Disclosure of documents belonging to the other party

A standard order has been issued for a freezing order, see Precedent: Standard order 3.1—freezing order—family proceedings, which is not obligatory but the use of which has been strongly encouraged by the President of the Family Division.

Securing assets

Where a party considers there is a risk that the other party is