The freezing injunction at 50: A powerful tool in commercial litigation

On 20 May 1975, a quiet, yet monumental legal development took place in the English courts - one that would forever reshape commercial litigation.

The airwaves were dominated rather aptly by Status Quo’s “Down Down” chart-topping hit about losing control and facing the consequences. Suitable mood music for what was happening in the Commercial Court. Here, Geoffrey Brice QC took a bold step, applying without notice to Mr Justice Donaldson in the Commercial Court for an injunction to prevent the removal of funds from London banks, securing assets against a potential judgment. Initially rejected, the application was renewed on appeal two days later and granted by the Court of Appeal in Nippon Yusen Kaisha v Karageorgis.[1]

Just a few weeks later, Bernard Rix sought a similar order, aimed at preventing the removal of funds linked to the vessel The Mareva AS. This time, Mr Justice Donaldson granted the order for a limited period of time, allowing the claimant to seek a final ruling from the Court of Appeal. It was here, that the decision in Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulkcarriers SA[2] cemented the freezing injunction’s place in legal history, ushering in what Lord Denning MR described as “the greatest piece of judicial law reform in my time.”

Now, 50 years on, the freezing injunction (formerly called a Mareva injunction) continues to be a cornerstone of commercial litigation. Indeed, 2025 not only marks a notable legal milestone, but it heralds the coming of a new model order (brought in by an amended CPR25), demonstrating that the freezing injunction remains at least as significant today as it was 50 years ago.

What is a freezing injunction?

A freezing injunction is a court order that prevents a party from disposing of or dealing with their assets. The purpose is to ensure that assets remain available to satisfy a judgment, preventing a defendant from moving funds offshore or otherwise evading financial liability. It has been described as a "nuclear weapon" of the law due to its severe implications, restricting a litigant’s ability to deal freely with their own property.

A freezing order can be obtained prior to court proceedings being issued, during proceedings, or even after judgment is given. It will apply only to assets over which a judgment can be attached, whether tangible or intangible (for example bank accounts, shares, cryptocurrency and land).

A freezing order can apply in one of two ways:

• domestic freezing order: which is restricted to assets located within England and Wales; or
• worldwide freezing order (WFO): which extends to assets outside the jurisdiction.

To obtain a freezing injunction, an applicant must demonstrate:

• A good arguable case on the merits against the respondent.[3]
• The existence of assets to freeze.[4]
• A real risk of dissipation.[5]
• That granting the injunction is just and convenient in the circumstances.[6]

New model freezing order from April 2025

Freezing orders are typically sought without notice to the respondent, as advance warning could trigger the very asset dissipation the injunction is designed to prevent. Applications are usually made to a High Court judge or a circuit judge in the County Court, depending on the complexity and value of the case. The application process involves submitting a completed Form N244 (or its Commercial or Financial List variants), which, as of 6 April 2025, must be supported by an affidavit or affirmation.[7] 

The April 2025 reforms also introduced a new standalone model order for freezing injunctions, replacing the previous version found in the now-revoked PD 25A. This model order is designed to standardise and clarify the structure of freezing orders. Applicants are expected to base their draft orders on this model and must clearly highlight and justify any deviations. The clauses in the model order reflect the case law as it has developed since the 1970s and provide judges and practitioners with a useful guide to the matters that have to be dealt with on an application for such an order.[8]

The new model order includes undertakings that the applicant will not use any information obtained as a result of the freezing order for the purpose of any other proceedings, and will not enforce the order outside the jurisdiction, without the court’s permission.

Why is the freezing injunction a useful tool?

For clients engaged in commercial disputes, freezing injunctions offer protection against asset dissipation. They serve several key functions:

1. Preserving assets: Primarily they are used to ensure that respondents cannot evade financial liability by transferring assets ahead of the enforcement of a judgment.
2. Strengthening negotiation power: Although freezing injunctions shouldn’t be used oppressively[9], and are not designed to curtail usual everyday expenditure (as discussed below), respondents facing an injunction may be more inclined to settle disputes.
3. Preventing fraudulent conduct: Freezing injunctions can serve as a deterrent against dishonest financial manoeuvres.
4. Cross-border reach: In certain circumstances, freezing injunctions can extend to assets outside the jurisdiction.

A recent high-profile case involving a freezing injunction is that of Matt Haycox, a British entrepreneur and investor. Press reports explain how the High Court imposed a multi-million-pound worldwide asset freezing order against Haycox in connection with a fraud claim brought by a Manchester-based investor. This case highlights the court’s willingness to impose such orders on a global scale when there is a credible risk of asset dissipation. It also illustrates the broad scope of assets that can be frozen, including digital and luxury items (e.g. a yacht, cars and a Bored Ape crypto token), reinforcing the injunction’s adaptability to modern assets. 

Beware the price you pay for an injunction!

Applicants should seek to use the tool with caution, and should be aware of the limitations or restrictions that come with bringing an application for a freezing order:

• Freezing injunctions are not to be used to punish respondents.[10] The freezing injunction is to protect assets for the enforcement of a judgment. Often freezing injunctions are sought early in the case, perhaps even before proceedings are issued. They are not intended to prevent the respondent from enjoying the usual expenditure or the lifestyle they had before the freezing order. The order should also not prevent the respondent from incurring reasonable legal costs.[11] Furthermore, freezing injunctions do not give applicants security over assets, or create any proprietary or security rights.
• Cross-undertaking in damages. An applicant for a freezing injunction must also be aware that they will be required to give undertakings to the court that they will compensate the respondent or other person, if later determined that the injunction should not have been granted and the respondent (or other person) has suffered a loss as a result.[12]
• Full and frank disclosure. When applying for a freezing injunction, especially on a without notice basis, the applicant has a duty to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts and law that might affect the court's decision. Failure to comply with this duty can lead to the discharge of the injunction.[13] 

A remedy of precision and power

As the freezing injunction reaches its golden anniversary, its significance in commercial litigation remains as strong as ever. For businesses and individuals seeking to protect their financial interests, the freezing injunction remains an indispensable tool, designed to prevent the dissipation of assets that could frustrate the enforcement of a judgment. The introduction of updated model orders and procedural clarity aims to enhance their accessibility and consistency, but the courts continue to exercise caution to prevent misuse. As the balancing act of providing effective interim relief against the rights of respondents continues, practitioners must approach these applications with precision, transparency, and a clear understanding of the evolving legal framework.

Looking ahead to the next 50 years, freezing injunctions are likely to evolve in tandem with the nature of assets and the technologies used to conceal or transfer them. As digital currencies, tokenised assets, and decentralised finance become more prevalent, courts will need to adapt enforcement mechanisms and jurisdictional reach. In any event, the core principles underpinning freezing injunctions (that a defendant should not take action that renders subsequent court orders less effective[14]) will remain essential to their legitimacy and effectiveness in the decades to come.