Freezing injunctions—applicant's cross-undertakings
Freezing injunctions—applicant's cross-undertakings

The following Dispute Resolution guidance note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • Freezing injunctions—applicant's cross-undertakings
  • Types of cross-undertakings
  • Fortification of undertakings
  • Requests to be released from cross-undertakings
  • Enforcement of cross-undertakings in damages
  • Freezing injunctions—applicant's cross-undertakings—breach
  • Court specific guidance

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 below.

Types of cross-undertakings

The claimant has to give certain cross-undertakings to the court on grant of a freezing injunction (CPR PD 25A, para 5.1(1)). Such undertakings are considered the 'price' of an interim injunction (see Schettini v Silvestri at para [8], citing Tucker v New Brunswick Trading Co of London, see also News Analysis: Appeal regarding voluntary cross-undertaking in damages held to be unsustainable (Schettini v Silvestri)). These undertakings should be set out in the order and are included in CPR PD 25A, Annex—Freezing Order, Sch B and the alternative version of the standard form order contained in the Commercial Court Guide, Appendix 11. They include:

  1. cross-undertaking in damages—this is an undertaking by the claimant to pay damages to the defendant if it transpires that the claimant was not entitled to the freezing order and the defendant has suffered loss as a consequence of it being ordered (Hoffmann-La Roche & Co v Secretary of State for Trade & Industry and SCF Tankers (Fiona Trust) v Privalov). The default position is that an applicant for an interim injunction is required to give