Last updateTue, 24 Feb 2015 5pm

CPR: Coming in from the cold

29 July 2011  

Michael Ward and Nicola Bridge explore the use and usefulness of freezing orders

Freezing orders prohibit dealings with specified assets, and are granted when the court is persuaded that there is a real risk that the respondent will dissipate those assets so as to render nugatory a judgment or arbitral award. An applicant must show that the respondent has assets within the jurisdiction but, once this is proven, the prohibition can extend to assets held in other jurisdictions. Any person breaching (or helping to breach) the terms of a freezing order is at risk of contempt proceedings, and ultimately faces the possibility of imprisonment.

Additional Info

  • Case(s) Referenced:

    American Cyanamid Co (no 1) v Ethicon Ltd [1975] UKHL 1

    Bank Mellat v Nikpour [1985] FSR 87

    Dadourian Group International Inc & ors v Azuri Ltd [2005] EWHC 1768 (Ch)

    JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & anor (rev 1) [2009] EWHC 3267 (Com)

    JSC BTA Bank v Kythreotis & ors [2010] EWCA Civ 1436

    Linsen International Ltd & ors v Humpuss Sea Transport PTE Ltd & anor [2010] EWHC 303 (Comm)

    TSB Private Bank International SA v Chabra [1992] 1 WLR 231

    Vitol SA v Capri Marine Ltd & ors (no 2) [2010] EWHC 458 (Comm)

    Yukos Capital SARL v OJSC Rosneft Oil Co & ors [2010] EWHC 784 (Comm)