What are the grounds for having a freezing order discharged?

Sep 08 2021

Civil Litigation and Arbitration

An Interim Freezing Order can be discharged on a number of grounds, and they may include:

Failure to establish the risk of the assets being dissipated

The purpose of Freezing Order is to prevent the dissipation of assets. For example, the fact that the defendant has acted wrongfully on the merits can be taken into account as evidence that the defendant is likely to attempt to dissipate assets. Therefore, if the applicant has not established the risk of the assets being dissipated, a Freezing Order may be discharged.

Failure to disclose all relevant facts to the court

As Freezing Orders are generally sought by claimants on ex parte (without the other party present), the applicant is under a duty to make full and frank disclosure. This means that the applicant must accurately and fully disclose all material facts to the court determining the application for the freezing order, including any facts that may adversely affect the applicant’s case. If an applicant does not comply with the duty of full and frank disclosure, or misrepresented the situation, the injunction is likely to be set aside.

Failure to ensure that the correct legal procedures and forms are used

A failure to disclose any legal principle or issue may also be considered a breach of the duty to give full and frank disclosure. This breach could also provide grounds for the order to be discharged.

Payment into Court

The respondent can pay the amount that is frozen into court and discharge the freezing injunction on that basis.

How Gherson can assist

Gherson litigation team has considerable experience conducting your arbitration, litigation, and freezing orders. We can advise you on whether there are grounds to apply to discharge or vary the terms of a freezing order. If you have a potential claim, please do not hesitate to contact us for advice, send us an e-mail, or alternatively, follow us on TwitterFacebook, or LinkedIn to stay-up-to-date.

The information in this blog is for general information purposes only and does not purport to be comprehensive or to provide legal advice. Whilst every effort is made to ensure the information and law is current as of the date of publication it should be stressed that, due to the passage of time, this does not necessarily reflect the present legal position. Gherson accepts no responsibility for loss which may arise from accessing or reliance on information contained in this blog. For formal advice on the current law please don’t hesitate to contact Gherson. Legal advice is only provided pursuant to a written agreement, identified as such, and signed by the client and by or on behalf of Gherson.

©Gherson 2021

View all news & Insights
Make an enquiry

Related Posts

  • Russian Prosecutor General Office’s claim to enjoin investor-state arbitration

    Civil Litigation and Arbitration

    April 23, 2025

    Russian Prosecutor General Office’s claim to enjoin investor-state arbitration

    Read more

  • Supreme Court ruling on proper forum for anti-suit injunctions: UniCredit v RusChemAlliance

    Civil Litigation and Arbitration

    December 2, 2024

    Supreme Court ruling on proper forum for anti-suit injunctions: UniCredit v RusChemAlliance

    Read more

Request Legal Advice

If you require legal assistance please get in touch
Contact us