A worldwide freezing order (WFO) is an order of the English court that prohibits a defendant from dealing with its assets in any country in the world and requires it to disclose those assets. The order is granted within days, without notice to the defendant, and its breach carries sanctions up to and including imprisonment. This article examines what a WFO is, the conditions on which the English court grants it, the proceedings in support of which it may be obtained, how the procedure works, and the consequences for a party in breach of the order and for those who assist in the breach.

What a worldwide freezing order is

A typical situation looks like this: a creditor is commencing, conducting or has won a major dispute, while the debtor owns real estate in London, bank accounts in Switzerland and companies in Cyprus. By the time judgment is given and presented for enforcement, those assets may have been transferred to relatives, sold or placed in trusts. The worldwide freezing order is designed precisely for this situation: the English court prohibits the debtor from reducing its assets below a specified sum, wherever they are located, until the dispute is resolved and the judgment enforced.

The statutory basis is section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, which empowers the High Court to grant an injunction in all cases in which it appears just and convenient to do so. Three features of the order are of key importance.

  • The order is not an attachment of property. It is directed not at the assets but at a specific individual or company. The order does not make the applicant the owner of the property and gives it no priority over other creditors, but it personally obliges the defendant, on pain of sanctions comparable to criminal ones, to refrain from certain conduct.
  • The order extends to all assets over which the defendant has effective control, including assets held in the names of nominees, trusts and controlled companies.
  • The order requires disclosure of assets. Within a prescribed period, usually a few days, the defendant must disclose on oath all of its assets above a specified threshold. In practice, this disclosure often proves more valuable than the injunction itself: for the first time, the creditor obtains a complete picture of the debtor’s financial position.

The description of the freezing order as a “nuclear weapon” was first used by Lord Donaldson in 1985. In 2024 the Court of Appeal repeated it in GFH Capital Ltd v Haigh, adding an important caveat:

“The courts require a claimant availing itself of the ‘nuclear weapons’ of civil litigation to monitor actively their use and effect and to be astute to apply to the court to maintain their effectiveness and fairness.”

The Ablyazov case: how a WFO works in practice

The operation of the order is best illustrated by a case that has been studied by English lawyers for more than fifteen years.

In 2009 the Kazakh bank BTA brought proceedings in the High Court in London against its former chairman, Mukhtar Ablyazov. The bank alleged that the defendant had siphoned several billion dollars out of the bank through a network of offshore companies. Before the case was heard on the merits, the bank obtained a worldwide freezing order: Ablyazov was prohibited from dealing with his assets anywhere in the world and ordered to disclose a complete list of them.

Formally, the order was complied with: the defendant produced a list of assets. The list, however, proved to be incomplete, and in cross-examination the defendant, as the court found, gave false evidence. In February 2012 Teare J found Ablyazov guilty of contempt of court on three counts: concealing assets, lying under oath and dealing with assets in breach of the order. The sentence was 22 months’ imprisonment. The defendant did not attend the handing down of the judgment, having left the United Kingdom.

Subsequent events show how far the consequences of a breach extend. The court made a so-called unless order: unless the defendant surrendered to the authorities and disclosed his assets by a specified date, his defence to the claim would be struck out. In November 2012 the Court of Appeal upheld that decision, holding that a person who refuses to abide by the rules of the process forfeits the right to defend himself in that process. As a result, the bank obtained judgments totalling more than four billion dollars without a full trial on the merits.

The case had a sequel. In 2018 the UK Supreme Court in JSC BTA Bank v Khrapunov considered the bank’s claim against Ablyazov’s son-in-law, Ilyas Khrapunov, who, the bank alleged, had assisted in concealing the assets. The court held that assisting a breach of a freezing order constitutes a self-standing civil wrong (conspiracy to injure by unlawful means) and that a person who provides such assistance is liable to the creditor for the resulting loss. An order addressed to one person created risks for his family and associates.

A WFO therefore cannot be ignored from outside England: the order changes the balance of power in a dispute for years ahead.

Conditions for granting a WFO

The order is granted at the discretion of the court, which is not bound by a rigid legal test; in practice, however, the court examines four conditions. None of them requires the applicant to prove that the case will be won.

1. A serious claim on the merits

The applicant must show that there is a “serious issue to be tried” on the merits. In 2024 the Court of Appeal in Dos Santos v Unitel SA confirmed that this comparatively low threshold applies to freezing orders. The claim must not be plainly unfounded, but it need not be proved in full at this stage.

2. Existence of assets

The applicant must show reasonable grounds for believing that the defendant has property against which a judgment could be enforced: real estate, shareholdings, bank accounts, receivables, yachts, works of art, including assets held through trusts or nominees. Precise account details are not required. On the contrary, they are to be disclosed by the other side once the order has been made.

3. A real risk of dissipation

This is the key condition and the most difficult to establish. The court assesses objective facts rather than the applicant’s fears: transfers of property to connected persons, sales at an undervalue, the use of offshore structures with no commercial rationale, evasion of earlier judgments, inaccurate statements about assets. The defendant’s past conduct may be an important argument. Where the claim itself is founded on fraud or misappropriation, this is usually already a weighty argument: the court proceeds on the basis that a person who has diverted funds once is capable of doing so again. Where the defendant has previously breached a freezing order, as in Lakatamia v Su discussed below, the court all but presumes the risk.

4. Justice and proportionality of the order

The sum frozen is usually limited to the amount of the claim together with interest and costs. The defendant is left with funds for living expenses, the ordinary course of business and legal costs. The applicant, for its part, gives the court a cross-undertaking in damages in case it later transpires that the order should not have been granted. The court may require this undertaking to be fortified by cash or a bank guarantee. This requirement reflects the seriousness of a WFO’s consequences and guards against abuse of the mechanism.

Jurisdiction of the English court

To grant the order, the English court must have jurisdiction over the defendant: the defendant is in England, the main dispute is before an English court or an arbitration seated in London, or there is a basis for serving the defendant out of the jurisdiction. The more difficult case is where the defendant, the assets and the main dispute are all outside England. In that situation the court decides whether its intervention is expedient and assesses the connection of the case with England: the presence here of assets, banks and third parties, and the realistic prospect of enforcing the order. The weaker that connection, the more cautious the court’s approach.

Proceedings in support of which a WFO may be granted

Proceedings in the English court. The simplest case. The order may be obtained before a claim is issued (with an undertaking to issue it within days), in the course of the proceedings, and after judgment, at the enforcement stage.

Proceedings in a foreign court. Under section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, the English court may grant a freezing order in support of proceedings in another country, for example Cyprus, the UAE, Switzerland, Russia or Kazakhstan. The main dispute is heard there, while the English order secures enforcement of the eventual judgment. Importantly, such an order lasts exactly as long as the foreign proceedings. In GFH Capital Ltd v Haigh the English order granted in support of proceedings in Dubai lapsed the moment the foreign case ended, which the applicant failed to notice in time.

Arbitration seated in London or abroad. Section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996 allows the English court to grant a freezing order in support of arbitration. Where the seat is London, the court does so in much the same way as in ordinary litigation, but intervenes only where the tribunal has not yet been constituted or is unable to act quickly and effectively (for example because an order of the arbitrators does not bind banks). Where the seat is abroad, the English court retains the power but exercises it more cautiously and only where there is a connection with England, above all the presence of assets or defendants within the jurisdiction. A significant development: for arbitrations commenced on or after 1 August 2025, the statute expressly permits such orders to be made against third parties who are not party to the arbitration, for example group companies or trusts in whose names the assets are held.

Money claims and claims to freeze specific property. As a rule, a WFO protects a future money judgment: the defendant is prohibited from reducing its assets below the amount of the claim, but decides for itself which assets to keep. Where the applicant asserts that specific property belongs to it (for example, misappropriated funds traced to a particular account, or shares transferred under a void transaction), the court may grant a proprietary injunction, a prohibition on dealing with that particular property, with no allowance for living expenses or lawyers. Both types of order may be combined in a single case.

Procedure

Speed and confidentiality are the principal advantages of a WFO. The typical sequence of steps is as follows.

  • Preparation. The applicant’s lawyers gather evidence on the merits of the dispute, on the existence of assets and on the risk of their dissipation. This usually takes from a few days to a few weeks; in urgent cases the order can be obtained within 24 hours.
  • Hearing without notice to the defendant. The application is heard by a High Court judge, usually in private. The applicant is under a special duty of full and frank disclosure: the court must be told not only the strengths but also the weaknesses of the position, including the defendant’s likely objections. Non-disclosure of a material fact is the most common ground for the subsequent discharge of the order, with costs against the applicant.
  • Service of the order. The order is served on the defendant and sent to banks and other holders of assets. From that moment, any person in England with notice of the order is bound to comply with it.
  • Disclosure of assets. Within the prescribed period, usually a few days, the defendant discloses on oath all assets in accordance with the order.
  • Inter partes hearing (return date or set aside). After the order is made, the court reviews whether it was properly granted, this time with the defendant’s participation. The defendant may apply to discharge the order (relying on the absence of a risk of dissipation or of jurisdiction, or on incomplete disclosure by the applicant), to narrow it, or to replace it with security such as a bank guarantee or a deposit.

The standard form of order allows an individual to spend a specified sum on living expenses and reasonable legal costs, and a company to carry on business in the ordinary course; assets above the frozen sum may be dealt with freely. Where property is held in the name of a spouse, children, a trust or a company but is in fact controlled by the defendant, the court may extend the order to those persons (a so-called Chabra order), even though no claim is brought against them.

Consequences of breaching a WFO

For the defendant, breach of the order is a contempt of court, punishable by imprisonment for up to two years, a fine or sequestration of assets. Ablyazov was sentenced to 22 months, the Taiwanese shipowner Nobu Su to 21 months. Where the breach continues, the court may deprive the defaulting party of the right to defend the claim on the merits, as happened in the Ablyazov case. A further practical consequence is that, for a person sentenced for contempt, entering the United Kingdom generally means arrest for the purpose of serving the sentence.

For those who assist a breach. The case law of recent years is particularly significant for banks, asset managers, trust companies and other holders of assets. In 2014 Lakatamia obtained a judgment against Nobu Su for approximately USD 37 million, having earlier, in 2011, obtained a freezing order. Notwithstanding this, Su sold two villas in Monaco, and approximately EUR 27 million of the proceeds were transferred, through a lawyer in Monaco, to his mother’s account in Taiwan. In January 2019 Su was arrested at Heathrow airport and in March of that year sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment for contempt.

Lakatamia then turned to recovering the funds. First, a freezing order was obtained against Su’s mother: in Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd v Morimoto the Court of Appeal held that a prior breach of the order is in itself strong evidence of the risk of a further breach. Next, a conspiracy claim was brought against the Monaco lawyer who had made the payment. The lawyer argued that he was a foreign person who had acted abroad in accordance with local law, and that the standard proviso in the English order (the Babanaft proviso) excluded its effect on persons outside England. The court of first instance agreed, but on 5 November 2025 the Court of Appeal in Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd v Su reached a different conclusion: the proviso protects foreign persons from punishment for contempt, but not from a civil claim in damages where they knowingly assisted in circumventing the order. Whether the case will proceed to the Supreme Court is currently being decided.

For banks in England, as for other persons within the jurisdiction, the order is binding from the moment notice of it is received: a bank that makes a payment in breach of the order itself risks liability for contempt.

In other words, the effect of the English order abroad is secured not by enforcement by English authorities (attaching specific property in another country requires a local procedure) but by the fact that any movement of assets becomes a source of risk for everyone in the chain.

Practical conclusions

For the applicant. The applicant should act quickly and without prior notice: every letter of demand gives the debtor time. Evidence of bad faith should be gathered in advance. The cost of the procedure and the cross-undertaking in damages, which may need to be fortified, must be taken into account. Once the order is obtained, the applicant must keep track of deadlines, changes in the asset position and the progress of foreign proceedings: the court expects the holder of the “nuclear weapon” to control its use.

For the defendant. Any dealing with assets after service of the order, including attempts to re-register them, will be used against the defendant and may result in imprisonment. The deadline for disclosure of assets must be met. At the same time, a position should be prepared for the return date: orders are frequently discharged or substantially narrowed, particularly where the applicant failed to inform the court of material circumstances.

For third parties holding assets. Once notice of the order is received, any payments should be suspended pending legal advice. The Khrapunov and Su cases show that reliance on following client instructions, or on being located outside England, is no longer a defence.

Conclusion

The worldwide freezing order remains the most effective tool for preserving assets in international disputes, and that is precisely why the English courts impose strict requirements on its use by both sides. For the applicant, the order offers the possibility of locking in the debtor’s assets before they are dissipated; for the defendant and third parties, it imposes obligations whose breach entails serious consequences regardless of where they are located. TRP International’s lawyers advise on obtaining and challenging freezing orders and on the recognition and enforcement of judgments and arbitral awards abroad.

Key sources