Freezing order meaning

Introduction to freezing injunctions and scope of this checklist A freezing injunction (also known as a freezing order) is a temporary court order that prevents a respondent from disposing of or transferring its assets out of the relevant jurisdiction—namely England and Wales—or, in the case of a worldwide freezing order (WFO), from moving them anywhere in the world. The court’s principal aim in granting such relief is to preserve the respondent’s assets so that, if the applicant later obtains judgment against the respondent, there will be assets available for recovery by the applicant and, if necessary, enforcement action. This Checklist explains how to make an application for a freezing injunction where claims are contemplated or already underway in a corporate or personal insolvency context. As the precise circumstances of each matter must be assessed, this Checklist does not claim to be exhaustive; rather, it provides an overview of the key considerations at each stage when seeking an order of this kind. The focus throughout is asset preservation pending determination...

STOP PRESS: The Financial Remedies Guide 2026, released on 13 March 2026 by Mr Justice Peel (National Lead Judge of the Financial Remedies Court) and His Honour Judge Hess (Deputy National Lead Judge of the Financial Remedies Court), and approved by the President of the Family Division, now replaces and supersedes: the Statement on the efficient conduct of financial remedy cases assigned to a High Court judge, whether heard at the Royal Courts of Justice or elsewhere (1 February 2016) (the High Court judge level efficiency statement) the Statement on the efficient conduct of financial remedy hearings in the Financial Remedies Court below High Court judge level (11 January 2022) (the below High Court judge level efficiency statement) the Financial Remedies Court Primary Principles document (11 January 2022) the Notice from the Financial Remedies Court: electronic bundles (19 April 2022) the Allocation of financial remedies cases to High Court judge level (21 May 2024) This document is being updated...

Search orders Formerly known as Anton Piller orders, search orders are frequently made in conjunction with a freezing order and permit an applicant to attend at the respondent’s premises to search for and safeguard evidence that might otherwise be disposed of, concealed, or destroyed. The order may only be served by a supervising solicitor and is subject to very strict requirements as set out in the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955. The adoption of Anton Piller relief, now codified within FPR 2010 as search orders, gained prominence in family proceedings through two authorities on disclosure and self‑help (L v L and Tchenguiz v Imerman; Imerman v Imerman). The courts have issued a firm caution against self‑help in preference to pursuing the proper court‑based remedies; see Practice Note: Procedural aspects of disclosure in financial proceedings—Disclosure of documents belonging to the other party. Great care should be exercised when drafting the terms of the order. A standard form search order has been produced—see Precedent: Standard order 3.2—search order—family...

In this issue: Investigating criminal conduct Criminal procedure and evidence Proceeds of crime Sentencing Bribery, corruption, sanctions and export controls Consumer protection and cartels Cybercrime and data protection offences Environmental offences Financial services and pensions offences Health and safety and corporate manslaughter offences Insolvency offences and Companies Act offences Money laundering International Other corporate crime news Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Investigating criminal conduct Standards of candour in closed hearings, and corporate witness statements (Attorney General v BBC; R (‘Beth’) v IPT) When scrutinising MI5’s actions across two High Court cases, the court addressed the grave consequences of presenting inaccurate material within closed hearings. It outlined the tightly confined situations that can justify a departure from open justice under section 6 of the Justice and Security Act 2013 (JSA 2013). The court further...

Collins and others v Wind Energy Holding Ltd [2025] EWHC 40 (Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling reinforces the formidable threshold that section 68 challenges must clear. Section 68 functions as a longstop safeguard for cases where a tribunal has seriously mishandled the arbitration in one of the ways identified in section 68(2). Court intervention is reserved for situations that are far removed from what could reasonably be expected of the arbitral process. The judgment also reconciles section 33 duties: on one side, ensuring each party a fair chance to put its case and answer the other’s arguments; on the other, preventing unnecessary delay or expense. Whether a tribunal has discharged these obligations is a context-specific question in every matter. It is a stringent standard, triggered by exceptional departures from proper process. The inquiry is fact-sensitive and context‑dependent. Here, the court found the claimants had adequate opportunity to address issues concerning the freezing order and to obtain legal representation, yet made no genuine...

From the introduction of the orders in April 2024 up to 3 July 2025, the white-collar crime prosecutor has not applied for or secured any of them, per Gherson Solicitors LLP, which filed the information request. HMRC stated it had applied for fewer than five of either type of order, though precise figures could not be shared for fear of identifying the individuals concerned, the request reveals. The powers to issue the orders are intended to assist with the recovery of crypto assets, including bitcoin, which can be exploited as a vehicle for complex money laundering schemes, terrorist financing or drug trafficking. Financial Conduct Authority figures from November 2024 indicate that 12% of UK adults hold crypto...

This Practice Note examines the principles governing the tort whereby a defendant deliberately interferes with a claimant’s rights in a judgment debt. For wider guidance on enforcing judgments, see: Introduction to enforcement—overview and related content. What is the Marex tort? The Marex tort describes a tort-based cause of action premised on an alleged intentional infringement of the claimant’s rights in a judgment debt. Its contours were first confirmed by Bryan J in 2021 in Lakatamia v Su, having been raised by Knowles J in 2017 in Marex v Garcia (also known as Marex v Sevilleja). See: Marex tort—history below. In Lakatamia v Su, Lakatamia pursued two claims against the defendants, Mr Su and his mother, Madam Su, including: unlawful means conspiracy—alleging a concerted plan to harm Lakatamia by unlawful means, through breaches of a 2011 worldwide freezing order in related Commercial Court proceedings against Mr Su (the Blair Freezing Order), by procuring the dissipation of two of Mr Son’s assets: the net sale proceeds...

Following a series of court decisions and influential commentary, it is now widely accepted that, under English law, cryptoassets are neither things in possession nor things in action; instead, they comprise a distinct third form of property as data objects. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002) establishes, in broad terms, two routes for the realisation of criminal proceeds: a conviction-based restraint and confiscation regime under POCA 2002, Pt 2, criminal in character and largely managed by the criminal courts under the Criminal Procedure Rules 2025 (CrimPR 2025), SI 2025/909; and a non-conviction based asset recovery regime under POCA 2002, Pt 5, operating within the civil jurisdiction. In England and Wales, at a high level, this results in: proceedings before the magistrates’ court, in its civil jurisdiction, for the freezing and forfeiture of (i) cash, (ii) high value personal property, and (iii) money in accounts held with financial institutions (FIs); and proceedings before the High Court for a...

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 the following resources listed in this section: 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 in more detail, see the following Practice Notes listed below: 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 an interim order restraining a respondent from taking assets out of the jurisdiction (ie England and Wales) and/or from dealing with assets wherever they are situated (CPR 25.1(1)(f)). Freezing...

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES, KINGS’S BENCH DIVISION, COMMERCIAL COURT before [ The Honourable Mr Justice OR The Honourable Mrs Justice ] [ insert name of judge ] (in private session) Claim No. [ insert claim number ] between: [ insert name(s) ] as Claimant(s)/Applicant(s) and [ insert name(s) ] as Defendant(s)/Respondent(s) [ The Claimant(s) and Defendant(s) in an Intended Action ] DRAFT FREEZING ORDER PENAL NOTICE If you, [ insert name of respondent(s) ], do not comply with this order, you risk being found in contempt of court and could face imprisonment, a fine, or confiscation of assets. Anyone else with knowledge of this order who assists or allows the Respondent to contravene it may likewise be found in contempt and be imprisoned, fined, or have their assets taken. 1 THIS ORDER 1.1 By order of Mrs/Mr Justice [ ] on [ ], this Freezing Injunction is granted against [ ] (‘the...

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES KING’S BENCH DIVISION COMMERCIAL COURT Before [ The Honourable Mr Justice OR The Honourable Mrs Justice ] [ insert name of judge ] (heard in private) Claim No. [ insert claim number ] Between: [ insert name(s) ] Claimant(s)/Applicant(s) and [ insert name(s) ] Claimant(s)/Respondent(s) [ The Claimant(s) and Defendant(s) in an Intended Action ] _______________________________________ DRAFT FREEZING ORDER _______________________________________ PENAL NOTICE If you [ insert name of respondent(s) ] fail to comply with this order, you could be found in contempt of court and risk imprisonment, a fine, or confiscation of assets. Any person who is aware of this order and does anything to assist or allow the Respondent to contravene it may likewise be found in contempt of court and could be imprisoned, fined, or have their assets taken by the court as a sanction. 1 THIS ORDER ...

At the Family Court held at [ Court name ] Case No: [ Case number ] [ The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 OR The Civil Partnership Act 2004 OR The Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 and Schedule 7 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 OR The Senior Courts Act 1981 OR Children Act 1989, Schedule 1 ] The [ Marriage OR Civil partnership OR Relationship ] of [ applicant name ] and [ respondent name ] After hearing from [ name the advocate(s) who appeared ] Having reviewed the statements and heard the witnesses set out in the recitals below A freezing order was made by [ name of judge ] on [ date ], sitting in private To [ RESPONDENT NAME ] of [ RESPONDENT ADDRESS ] Warning: if you, [ RESPONDENT NAME ], fail to obey this order you may be found in contempt of court and could be imprisoned, fined, or have your assets seized Any...