Freezing Injunction

Freezing Injunction
Freezing Injunction
Full Overview Of Freezing Injunction

In the complex world of civil litigation in the United Kingdom, a freezing injunction is a powerful legal tool. Also known as a Mareva Injunction, it is used to prevent a defendant from dissipating their assets in a way that could hinder the enforcement of a current or potential judgement. This detailed overview aims to clarify the legal framework, application process, criteria, implications, and challenges associated with freezing injunctions, providing a thorough understanding for legal professionals, businesses, and individuals who may come across this remedy.

Freezing injunctions are primarily governed by the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), specifically under Part 25, which deals with interim remedies and security for costs. Additionally, case law plays a significant role in shaping the application and interpretation of freezing injunctions, with landmark cases such as Mareva Compania Naviera SA v. International Bulkcarriers SA [1975] laying the foundation for their use.

A freezing injunction can be sought in domestic and international contexts, allowing for the restraint of assets located within the jurisdiction of England and Wales and overseas. The extraterritorial reach of such injunctions is particularly crucial in a globalised economy where assets can easily be moved across borders.

Criteria for Issuing a Freezing Injunction

For a freezing injunction to be granted, the applicant must satisfy several stringent criteria:

  1. A Good Arguable Case: The applicant must demonstrate that they have a good arguable case on the merits of the substantive claim. This does not require proving the case to the standard of a trial, but the claim must not be frivolous or vexatious.
  2. Risk of Dissipation: There must be a real risk that the defendant will dissipate or conceal their assets, making it difficult or impossible to enforce a future judgement. This risk must be evidenced clearly and convincingly.
  3. Balance of Convenience: The court must consider whether the balance of convenience favours granting the injunction. This involves weighing the potential harm to the applicant if the injunction is not granted against the potential harm to the defendant if it is.
  4. Full and Frank Disclosure: The applicant is obliged to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts, including those that may be adverse to their case. Failure to do so can result in the injunction being discharged.

Application Process

The process for applying for a Freezing Injunction involves several detailed steps:

  1. Preparation of Evidence: The applicant must gather and prepare comprehensive evidence to support the application. This includes affidavits, witness statements, and documents demonstrating the risk of dissipation and the merits of the substantive claim.
  2. Ex Parte Application: Freezing Injunctions are typically sought on an ex parte basis, meaning without notice to the defendant. This prevents the defendant from moving assets before the injunction is granted. The application is made to the High Court, accompanied by a detailed affidavit setting out the grounds for the injunction and the evidence in support.
  3. Court Hearing: At the ex parte hearing, the judge will consider the evidence presented and determine whether the criteria for a Freezing Injunction are met. If satisfied, the judge will grant the injunction, usually for a limited period until a full inter partes hearing can be held.
  4. Service and Compliance: Once granted, the injunction must be served on the defendant and any third parties holding the defendant’s assets, such as banks. The defendant must disclose their worldwide assets and comply with the injunction’s terms.
  5. Inter Partes Hearing: A full inter partes hearing is held shortly after the ex parte injunction is granted. Both parties can present their arguments, and the court will decide whether to continue, vary, or discharge the injunction.

Implications of a Freezing Injunction

The issuance of a freezing injunction has significant implications for both the applicant and the defendant:

  1. For the Applicant: The injunction provides a vital tool to prevent the defendant from evading justice by hiding or dissipating assets. However, obtaining and enforcing a freezing injunction can be costly and time-consuming. The applicant must also provide an undertaking in damages, which is a promise to compensate the defendant if it is later found that the injunction should not have been granted.
  2. For the Defendant: A freezing injunction can severely restrict the defendant’s ability to manage their assets and conduct business. It requires detailed disclosure of their assets, which can be invasive. The defendant may also incur significant legal costs in challenging the injunction and demonstrating compliance.
  3. For Third Parties: Banks and other institutions holding the defendant’s assets may also be impacted, as they must comply with the injunction’s terms and freeze the specified assets. They may face liability if they fail to do so.

Challenges and Controversies

Freezing injunctions, while powerful, are not without their challenges and controversies:

  1. Evidential Hurdles: Proving the risk of dissipation can be particularly challenging. Applicants must present cogent evidence, often requiring the assistance of forensic accountants or investigators.
  2. Balance of Fairness: Courts must carefully balance the need to prevent asset dissipation with the defendant’s right to conduct their affairs. Overly broad or unjustified injunctions can cause significant harm to the defendant.
  3. Costs and Undertakings: The costs associated with obtaining and enforcing a Freezing Injunction can be substantial. Additionally, the requirement for an undertaking in damages can be a significant financial burden for the applicant.
  4. Cross-Border Issues: In cases involving international assets, enforcement can be complex and requires careful consideration of the laws and procedures in the relevant foreign jurisdictions.

Case Law and Precedents

Several key cases have shaped the landscape of Freezing Injunctions:

  1. Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulkcarriers SA [1975]: This landmark case established the principle of the Freezing Injunction, setting the stage for its use in English law.
  2. Ninemia Maritime Corp v Trave Schiffahrtsgesellschaft mbH & Co KG (The Niedersachsen) [1984] 1 All ER 398: This case clarified the requirement for a good arguable case and the need for a real risk of asset dissipation.
  3. Fourie v Le Roux [2007] UKHL 1: This House of Lords decision emphasised the importance of full and frank disclosure by the applicant and the consequences of failing to meet this duty.


Freezing injunctions are an important tool in civil litigation, allowing assets to be preserved and ensuring that judgements can be enforced. The legal framework, which is based on the Civil Procedure Rules and developed through case law, ensures that these injunctions are used fairly and carefully. The criteria for obtaining a freezing injunction are strict, but necessary to prevent misuse and ensure that the remedy is only used when genuinely needed.

Freezing Injunction FAQ'S

A freezing injunction, also known as a freezing order, is a court order that prevents a party from disposing of or dealing with their assets to ensure they remain available to satisfy a potential future judgement.

A freezing injunction can be granted when there is a real risk that the respondent may dissipate their assets to frustrate the enforcement of a court judgement. The applicant must demonstrate a good, arguable case and that the balance of convenience favours granting the order.

A freezing injunction can apply to various types of assets, including bank accounts, properties, shares, and other valuable assets. It can cover assets within the jurisdiction and, in some cases, assets located abroad (worldwide freezing orders).

To apply for a freezing injunction, you need to file an application with the court, supported by evidence and a sworn affidavit detailing the reasons for the request. The application is often made ex parte (without notice to the respondent).

The applicant must demonstrate a good, arguable case and show that there is a real risk that the respondent will dissipate assets. The court also considers the balance of convenience and whether it is just and convenient to grant the order.

Yes, freezing injunctions are often obtained on an ex-parte basis to prevent the respondent from moving or hiding assets before the order is made. However, a return hearing is usually scheduled soon after to allow the respondent to challenge the order.

Breaching a freezing injunction is a serious offence and can result in contempt of court proceedings. Penalties for contempt can include fines, imprisonment, or other sanctions deemed appropriate by the court.

Yes, the respondent can apply to the court to challenge or discharge the freezing injunction. They must provide evidence to show that the order was wrongly granted or that the circumstances have changed, making the order unnecessary.

A cross-undertaking in damages is an undertaking given by the applicant to compensate the respondent for any losses suffered due to the freezing injunction if it is later found that the order should not have been granted.

A freezing injunction is typically temporary and lasts until a specified date or until the court makes a further order. It may be extended by the court if necessary. The order remains in effect until the conclusion of the underlying legal proceedings or until it is discharged by the court.


This site contains general legal information but does not constitute professional legal advice for your particular situation. Persuing this glossary does not create an attorney-client or legal adviser relationship. If you have specific questions, please consult a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.

This glossary post was last updated: 11th July 2024.

Cite Term

To help you cite our definitions in your bibliography, here is the proper citation layout for the three major formatting styles, with all of the relevant information filled in.

  • Page URL:
  • Modern Language Association (MLA):Freezing Injunction. DLS Solicitors. July 15 2024
  • Chicago Manual of Style (CMS):Freezing Injunction. DLS Solicitors. (accessed: July 15 2024).
  • American Psychological Association (APA):Freezing Injunction. Retrieved July 15 2024, from website:
Avatar of DLS Solicitors
DLS Solicitors : Family Law Solicitors

Our team of professionals are based in Alderley Edge, Cheshire. We offer clear, specialist legal advice in all matters relating to Family Law, Wills, Trusts, Probate, Lasting Power of Attorney and Court of Protection.

All author posts