In 2025, the United Kingdom remains one of the most attractive jurisdictions in the world for obtaining powerful interim remedies in commercial disputes. Chief among them being the Freezing Order, an extremely potent form of interim relief that can paralyse a defendant’s global assets before judgment.
As commercial fraud, cryptocurrency disputes and cross-border litigation increase in complexity, courts have adapted their approach to freezing orders, balancing the need for urgent relief with fairness, proportionality and procedural safeguards.
What is a Freezing Order?
A freezing order (formerly known as a Mareva injunction) is a court order that restrains a party from dissipating assets held inside England and Wales and, if appropriate, outside the UK (a worldwide freezing order) prior to judgment. While it does not give the claimant a proprietary right in the assets, it protects their ability to enforce any future judgment.
Under Section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, the High Court has the power to grant such relief where it is “just and convenient.” The applicant must satisfy well-established criteria, including that:
- There is a good arguable case;
- There is a real risk of dissipation of assets by the respondent; and
- The relief is just and convenient in all the circumstances.
Recent Trends and Key Developments
Raising the Bar on Risk of Dissipation
Courts have in recent years become more rigorous in their analysis of the risk of dissipation. While the test remains a factual assessment, recent case law demonstrates that mere suspicion or allegations of dishonesty are insufficient.
In CE Energy DMCC v Ultimate Oil and Gas DMCC & another [2024] EWHC 2846 (Comm), the Court denied the continuation of a WFO as there was no primary evidence that showed risk of dissipation. Though the defendants had failed to pay their debts and cheques had been dishonoured, this did not, in itself, provide evidence of dissipation.
Digital Assets and Freezing Relief
Cryptocurrency-related freezing orders have become increasingly common, but they raise new questions of jurisdiction, valuation and tracing. The Commercial Court has shown a willingness to extend freezing orders over digital wallets, provided the defendant’s identity and asset control can be demonstrated.
In Tulip Trading Limited v Wladimir Van Der Laan [2023] EWCA Civ 83, the Court confirmed that cryptocurrency is “at least arguably property which can be the subject of such an injunction“, highlighting the potential for the use of freezing orders in cases involving digital assets.
In Frederik Ali Florian Detlev Sachs v Haydn Ross Snape & Ors [2025] EWHC 1746 (Comm) the Court granted a freezing order in respect of the Defendant, his brother, associated companies and ‘persons unknown’ holding crypto wallets.
Full and Frank Disclosure: A Reaffirmed Duty
The Courts continue to strictly enforce the duty of full and frank disclosure at the ex parte stage. Failures, even inadvertent, can result in discharge of the freezing order and potential costs sanctions, as was the case in Fundo Soberano de Angola v dos Santos [2018] EWHC 2199 (Comm), where the Court ruled that applicants must actively highlight potentially adverse facts, arguments and evidence, not just present them neutrally in the documents.
A heavy burden remains on the shoulders of legal advisers to ensure that their clients understand the importance of providing full and frank disclosure.
Practical Guidance for Applicants
To successfully obtain and maintain a freezing order, practitioners should:
- Prepare robust evidence of risk of dissipation, including asset movements, offshoring behaviour, or evasive tactics;
- Ensure strict compliance with disclosure obligations, including adverse facts;
- Anticipate any jurisdictional and enforcement challenges stemming from assets held overseas; and
- Consider whether other interim relief (e.g. proprietary injunctions, Norwich Pharmacal orders) may be more suitable.
Looking Ahead
In 2025, the English courts continue to offer a powerful forum for interim relief in civil and commercial litigation. However, the rising complexity of asset structures, especially digital and cross-border, requires applicants to be both precise and persuasive in their evidence.
The Courts have made clear that freezing orders are not to be granted lightly and they remain an extraordinary measure that demands extraordinary justification.
As the Courts move further into an era of digitisation, internationalisation and novel asset classes, the role of the freezing order remains central, but only for those who can meet its increasingly stringent standards.
Author: Oliver Richardson, Associate at Bivonas