The freezing of assets is a serious step. It requires the right strategy as well as intelligent legal argument and decisive action in order to secure the right outcome.
Rahman Ravelli provides this in each and every case involving freezing orders. We always provide the most robust representation as we believe that is the best way to ensure that our clients are in the strongest possible position to challenge what is being alleged by the other party.
We believe in addressing every issue relating to a freezing order with speed and precision so that those we represent suffer the minimum inconvenience and have the maximum chance of success.
A freezing order is put in place so that assets cannot be diminished or moved before a legal judgement is made regarding their ownership. Bank accounts, private and public shares, tangible property such as cars and land and intangible property such as goodwill in a business or intellectual property rights can all be the subject of freezing orders.
Every freezing order is effective from the moment the defendant (also known as the respondent) is notified of it. They can be used in a wide variety of situations and failure to comply with one will lead to contempt of court proceedings. Anyone who is considering bringing a freezing order or who is having to defend one must, therefore, seek the very best legal advice in order to assert their right to what is theirs.
Success when it comes to freezing orders can depend on strong and logical argument, a mastery of the facts and a legal expertise that can, when necessary, extend across international borders.
We use all of this, coupled with our huge experience in this field, to make sure our clients’ interests are represented in the very best possible way at every opportunity.
A freezing order (formally known as a freezing injunction, formerly called a Mareva injunction) is a court order that restrains a defendant from dealing with, disposing of, or removing their assets below a specified value. It is one of the most powerful interim remedies available in civil litigation, used to prevent a defendant from dissipating assets before judgment can be enforced. Freezing orders are most commonly sought in civil fraud, asset recovery, and commercial dispute cases and are granted by the High Court.
To obtain a freezing order, a claimant must demonstrate: a good arguable case on the merits of the underlying claim; that the defendant has assets within the jurisdiction (or, in the case of a worldwide order, overseas); and that there is a real risk that, without a freezing order, the defendant will dissipate or remove assets so as to render any judgment unenforceable. Applications are commonly made without notice to the defendant (on an ex parte basis) where there is urgency or a risk that giving notice would lead to dissipation before the order can be obtained.
A worldwide freezing order (WFO) extends the reach of the freezing injunction beyond England and Wales to cover all assets held by the defendant wherever they are located in the world. English courts have a long-established jurisdiction to grant WFOs, which can then be recognised and enforced in many overseas jurisdictions. WFOs are particularly valuable in international fraud cases where assets have been moved through multiple jurisdictions to evade recovery. However, the English court exercises its jurisdiction carefully and grants WFOs subject to conditions designed to prevent abuse.
Yes. A defendant subject to a freezing order can apply to set it aside or vary it. Common grounds for challenge include: a lack of full and frank disclosure by the claimant on the original without-notice application; the absence of a good arguable case on the merits; lack of evidence of a real risk of dissipation; disproportionality of the order; third party claims to the restrained assets; and the hardship caused by the order.
A claimant who applies for a freezing order without giving notice to the defendant is under a strict duty to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts — including any facts that might be relied on by the defendant in opposing the application. Failure to comply with this duty is a serious matter that can result in the order being discharged, even if the underlying claim is strong. Courts take a firm approach to non-disclosure, and defendants are well-advised to scrutinise the claimant's evidence carefully for any material omissions.
No. A freezing order is a personal order against the defendant — it does not give the claimant any proprietary interest in the frozen assets, nor does it give priority over other creditors. It is a negative injunction that restrains the defendant from acting, rather than a positive order vesting rights in the claimant. This distinction is important: if the defendant becomes insolvent, the frozen assets will form part of the general estate and will not be preferentially available to the claimant who obtained the order.
A search order (formerly called an Anton Piller order) is a different form of urgent interim remedy that permits the claimant to enter the defendant's premises and search for and preserve evidence. Unlike a freezing order, which restrains the movement of assets, a search order authorises the taking of documents and other evidence. Both can be obtained without notice in appropriate cases. They are distinct remedies that serve different purposes, though they are often sought together in complex civil fraud cases where there is a risk of both asset dissipation and evidence destruction.
A freezing order can have immediate and severely disruptive practical consequences. It restricts the operation of bank accounts, preventing transactions, and creating uncertainty for business partners and customers. Early and specialist legal advice is essential to assess the grounds for a challenge, to apply for appropriate variations to permit legitimate expenditure, and to identify any failures of disclosure by the claimant.
