This Practice Note considers the availability of freezing injunctions in support of arbitration under the law of England and Wales and pursuant to the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) (England and English are used as convenient shorthands). A freezing injunction or freezing order (formerly known as a ‘Mareva’ injunction) is an interim injunction that restrains a defendant from either removing their assets from the jurisdiction (ie England and Wales) or from dealing with them if they are not in the jurisdiction (known as a worldwide freezing order or WFO). The purpose of granting a freezing injunction is to ensure that the defendant’s assets are preserved so that in the event the claimant obtains judgment against the defendant, assets are available for the claimant to recover damages and costs. Many types of assets can be frozen, including bank accounts. Freezing injunctions are personal (they operate in personam); they attach to the defendant and are different from other forms of court order that have a proprietary effect—see Practice Notes: Proprietary

This Practice Note provides guidance on applying for a freezing injunction (also known as a Mareva injunction or freezing order) in support of proceedings outside the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales pursuant to section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (CJJA 1982). It explains the discretionary power to grant such relief and the circumstances in which the court may exercise that power. The guidance in this Practice Note, in addition to considering CJJA 1982, s 25, focuses 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 in the main section titled: Court specific guidance. For guidance on applying for a freezing injunction and the applicable principles, see Practice Notes: • Freezing injunctions—guiding principles • Freezing injunctions—post-judgment • Freezing injunctions against third parties—the Chabra jurisdiction • Freezing injunctions—the application • Freezing injunctions—the draft order For specific guidance on CJJA

This Practice Note provides guidance on orders which the court may make that are ancillary to a freezing injunction, with a particular emphasis passport orders and receivership orders in support of freezing injunctions. For guidance on orders for disclosure of information concerning the defendant’s assets, which may be granted before or as part of a freezing injunction and may be supplemented by orders for additional disclosure at a later date and related considerations concerning asset disclosure, see Practice Note: Freezing injunctions—asset disclosure. For guidance on freezing injunction applications and the applicable principles, see Practice Notes: • Freezing injunctions—guiding principles • Freezing injunctions—post-judgment • Freezing injunctions against third parties—the Chabra jurisdiction • Freezing injunctions—the application • Freezing injunctions—the draft order 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 in the main section titled Court specific guidance below. Orders ancillary to freezing injunctions In addition to the

This Practice Note provides guidance on asset disclosure orders in support of a freezing injunction (also known as a Mareva injunction or freezing order). It explains when asset disclosure or further disclosure orders might be granted, the scope of such orders, as well as considering briefly issues of confidentiality and privilege against self-incrimination. Disclosure orders relating to the source of legal funding and for cross-examination of a respondent on their assets are also addressed. 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 in the main section titled Court specific guidance below. For more general information on freezing injunction applications and the applicable principles, see Practice Notes: • Freezing injunctions—guiding principles • Freezing injunctions—post-judgment • Freezing injunctions against third parties—the Chabra jurisdiction • Freezing injunctions—the application • Freezing injunctions—the draft order For guidance on other types of relief which are often applied for in conjunction

Dispute Resolution analysis: This case considered two conflicting positions in respect of costs orders, following a continuation application for a worldwide freezing order. The first was that the ordinary position is for the court to make an order for costs following the hearing of a continuation application (supported by a line of authorities starting with Bravo v Amerisur Resources plc (2020) and ending with Harrington & Charles Trading Ltd v Mehta (2023). The second was that the ordinary position in respect of a continuation application is the same as that of an interim injunction, which is for costs to be reserved (supported by Al Assam v Tsouvelekakis (2022)). The Commercial Court helpfully analysed these conflicting authorities before favouring the position adopted by the majority, ordering that the unsuccessful defendant (ie, the respondent to the continuation application) pay the claimant’s costs of the application. Written by Connor Jones, barrister at Hailsham Chambers.

This Practice Note refers to the undertakings required in order to obtain a freezing injunction. In particular, it refers to the cross-undertaking in damages, often referred to as the 'price' of obtaining a freezing injunction, and considers in detail fortification of the cross-undertaking in damages, explaining what fortification is and when it is required, who can provide fortification, acceptable forms of fortification and whether it is possible to be released from fortification. 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. What is fortification and when is it required? Unless the court orders otherwise, applicants are required to give certain undertakings (also known as cross-undertakings) in return for the grant of an interim injunction. These undertakings are solemn promises made to the court and prescribe how the applicant will act if an injunction is granted in the terms sought. For detailed guidance on

Dispute Resolution analysis: Popplewell J has considered a number of applications by the parties to this high-profile litigation between property tycoons concerning a freezing injunction and disclosure orders. The issues included the adequacy of proposed fortification of cross-undertaking in damages, whether the freezing order should be discharged because of lack of clean hands on the part of the applicant, and whether the disclosure order made to help police the freezing injunction should be made into the form of an unless order.

This Practice Note considers the duty of full and frank disclosure in without notice applications for freezing injunctions. For related guidance on the duty of full and frank disclosure in the context of without notice applications generally, see also Practice Notes: • Interim injunctions—without notice applications—Duty of full and frank disclosure • Cross-border service—full and frank disclosure The requirement to provide full and frank disclosure will also apply to applications which are made on short notice. For details, For details, including reference to cases involving applications for freezing injunctions, see Practice Note: Interim injunctions—on notice applications. Note that the guidance in this Practice Note focuses on the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the CPR. Depending on the court in which your matter is proceeding, additional provisions may apply—see further below in the main section: Court specific guidance. 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 example draft

This Practice Note introduces freezing injunctions, explaining what they are and the different types that can be applied for. For guidance on making and responding to an application for a freezing injunction, see: • Practice Note: Freezing injunctions—the application • Practice Note: Freezing injunctions—the draft order • Applying for a freezing injunction—checklist • Responding to a freezing injunction—checklist • Precedent: Affidavit in support of a freezing injunction • Precedent: Affidavit in opposition to the continuation of a freezing injunction granted without notice For examples of judgments addressing these principles, see Practice Notes: • Freezing injunctions—illustrative decisions • Freezing injunctions—key and illustrative decisions (2020–2024) [Archived] What is a freezing injunction? A freezing injunction (or freezing order) is a form of interim injunction which restrains the respondent from removing their assets from the jurisdiction (ie England and Wales) and/or from dealing with their assets wherever they are located (CPR 25.1(1)(f)). Freezing injunctions were formerly called Mareva injunctions after the case Mareva Compania Naviera v International Bulkcarriers; The Mareva. As Longmore LJ stated in JSC BTA Bank v Solodchenko: ‘…[t]he

This Practice Note summarises a number of illustrative cases addressing applications for freezing injunctions. It is intended to provide a broad sense of the diverse range of factual scenarios and issues which can arise in respect of such orders, with particular focus on decisions dating from 1 January 2025 onwards. For key and illustrative decisions dated prior to 2025, see Practice Note: Freezing injunctions—key and illustrative decisions (2020–2024) [Archived]. Note that 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 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-date 6 April 2025 should be approached with some caution as they

This Practice Note provides guidance on how the courts approach the interpretation of freezing injunctions (also known as a Mareva injunctions or freezing orders). It considers what constitutes an asset, the prohibited conduct and the consequences of breaching a freezing injunction. It also discusses the implications of freezing injunctions for third parties as well as the ‘exceptions’ to freezing injunctions, including living and legal expenses and transactions in the ordinary and proper course of business (the Angel Bell exception). For general guidance on making an application for a freezing injunction and the applicable principles, see Practice Notes: • Freezing injunctions—guiding principles • Freezing injunctions—real risk of dissipation of assets • Freezing injunctions—the application For further guidance on making or responding to an application for a freezing injunction, see: • Applying for a freezing injunction—checklist • Responding to a freezing injunction—checklist 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,

ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note summarises a number of key and/or illustrative cases relevant to freezing injunction applications, with particular focus on the period 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2024. It is not maintained and is for background information only. For illustrative decisions from 1 January 2025 onwards, see Practice Note: Freezing injunctions—illustrative decisions (2025). For general guidance and links to detailed content concerning freezing injunctions, see: Freezing injunctions—overview. Case details and analysis Judgment date Case summary Court of Appeal Isabel dos Santos v Unitel S.A. [2024] EWCA Civ 1109News Analysis: Good arguable case—no longer arguable in freezing order cases? (Isabel dos Santos v Unitel) 30 September 2024 The Court of Appeal decision in these proceedings covered two key considerations when making an application for a freezing injunction.First, the Court of Appeal appeared to draw a firm line under the debate concerning the meaning of a ‘good arguable case’ in the context of freezing injunction applications, ruling that the test is as had been set out in The