When would I need a freezing injunction and what are the requirements?

What is a freezing injunction?

A freezing injunction is a type of court order that prevents an individual or a business (“the respondent”) from selling, transferring, gifting or otherwise disposing of or dealing with their assets.

The party making the application to the court is known as the applicant. The applicant will usually be seeking a freezing order to preserve the respondent’s assets pending the outcome of an underlying claim.

Typically, an application for a freezing junction order will be made without notice to the respondent i.e. without informing them in advance. This means that the first hearing of the application will take place without the respondent being present to make any counter-argument, to avoid ‘tipping them off’ and giving the respondent an opportunity to move or dispose of any assets before the court has an opportunity to intervene.

If the freezing inunction application is successful, the court will make an interim injunction order. A second (or return) hearing will then be listed and the respondent informed, so that they then have an opportunity to present any arguments they wish to raise, aimed at securing a release or variation of the terms of the freezing injunction order.

What types of asset can a freezing injunction order apply to?

All types of assets can be subject to a freezing injunction, including, for example land, property, bank accounts, shares and motor vehicles.

A freezing injunction can apply to assets located: (1) within England and Wales (domestic freezing injunctions); and (2) outside the jurisdiction, anywhere else in the world (worldwide freezing injunctions).

The terms of the freezing injunction order will specify which of the respondent’s assets are frozen. The type of freezing injunction will determine the limit of the assets subject to the injunction. These include:

1. A maximum sum order – the value of the assets frozen is limited to the value of the underlying claim, potentially including interest and costs
2. A general order – all of the respondent’s assets are frozen
3. An order that attaches to specific assets – only the assets provided in the injunction are frozen.

Not only is the respondent prohibited from disposing of or dealing with the assets covered by the freezing injunction order, but third parties on notice of the freezing injunction order will also be required to comply with its terms. This extends to prohibiting third parties from assisting or permitting the respondent to breach the terms of the injunction.

A freezing injunction is therefore a very powerful remedy and has been described as a “nuclear weapon” of the law, as per Bank Mellat v Nikpour (1985) FSR 87.

When would I need a freezing injunction?

So, in what scenario would you need to obtain a freezing injunction?

A freezing injunction should be considered where there are concerns that a party may move, hide or dispose of assets that would frustrate the enforcement of any future judgment against them.

Proceedings do not have to have been commenced for a freezing injunction to be obtained. A freezing injunction may be obtained before issuing proceedings, during proceedings, and after trial and determination.

Commonly a freezing injunction is sought where there are concerns about the respondent’s disposal of assets to make itself “enforcement-proof” or where it intends to abscond to avoid the proceedings.

What are the requirements to obtain a freezing injunction?

Considering the consequences a freezing injunction has on the respondent’s day-to-day life, the court will not grant such a powerful remedy without compelling evidence that an order is necessary.

There are three requirements that an applicant must satisfy for the court to grant a freezing injunction:

1. That they have a “good arguable case”, which is one that is more than barely capable of serious argument, but not necessarily one which a judge would consider to have a better than 50 per cent chance of success
2. That there is real risk of dissipation, which is an objective test, in which the applicant must show there is a real risk that a future judgment would not be satisfied due to an unjustified dissipation of assets. The risk of dissipation cannot be merely inferred or generally asserted, it must be established by solid evidence
3. That it is just and convenient to grant the order, which involves the court considering the strength of the applicant’s case, the risk of dissipation of assets, and the wider circumstances as a whole and whether granting a freezing injunction would cause legitimate hardship for the respondent.

In addition, when applying for an injunction, the applicant will ordinarily be required to provide a cross-undertaking in damages. This is essentially a binding promise given to the court by the applicant, to agree to compensate the respondent for any losses they incur if the court at a later date finds that the injunction should not have been granted. The cross undertaking in damages is regarded as the “price” an applicant must agree to pay, for obtaining urgent relief from the court, to ensure that the respondent is fairly protected.

The applicant must also provide “full and frank disclosure” so that the court is aware of all of the circumstances giving rise to the alleged requirement for a freezing injunction and can decide, in the knowledge of the full circumstances, whether a freezing junction is necessary and appropriate.

A failure to provide “full and frank disclosure” can prove disastrous for an applicant, as seen below.

A recent case study: Lakhany v Hasan [2025] EWHC 3369 (KB)

The High Court in Lakhany v Husan [2025] EWHC 3369 (KB) recently reaffirmed that the onus is on the applicant to demonstrate how the above requirements for a freezing injunction are satisfied and the need of an application to fulfil their duty to the court to provide full and frank disclosure.

The court in Lakhany discharged an interim freezing order that was previously granted against the respondent after the court found that the applicant had failed to provide solid evidence establishing a real risk of the respondent dissipating assets.

Various facts, which were known to the applicant and / or were within the public domain and so accessible to the applicant, were not brought to the attention of the court at the first hearing when the interim injunction was made.

Further, the applicant had failed to bring to the court’s attention the fact that there had been a delay of 8 weeks between events that made the applicant believe there to be a risk of dissipation, and when the applicant made the application for the freezing injunction.

The court found that such delay undermined claims of urgency which underpinned the applicant’s position on why a freezing injunction needed to be granted against the respondent.

In failing to comply with its duty to provide full and frank disclosure, which in turn seriously undermined the three requirements of obtaining a freezing injunction, the court in Lakhany showed no hesitation in discharging the freezing injunction.

This case highlights the importance of understanding the legal and procedural requirements of seeking injunctive relief, and it also demonstrates the need for a careful analysis of the merits and demerits of launching an application, and when it might be appropriate to challenge the initial granting of an order.

Contact us

If you are facing litigation with a concern that another party may seek to hide or dispose of their assets to avoid their liabilities, or if you need to respond to the risk of an injunction application being made against you, please contact our expert team of commercial litigation lawyers at Thomson Snell & Passmore who will be pleased to consider these issues with you.