Why this freezing order decision is important
A recent High Court decision in Litasco SA v Banque El Amana SA [2026] EWHC (Comm) has highlighted how a worldwide freezing order can be discharged where the court does not have proper jurisdiction.
Worldwide freezing orders are among the most powerful tools available in English civil litigation. They are designed to prevent defendants from dissipating assets before a claim is resolved.
However, because these orders are intrusive and often obtained without notice to the defendant, the courts apply strict procedural safeguards. If those safeguards are not met, the order can be discharged.
The decision serves as a reminder that obtaining a freezing order is only the first stage. Claimants must ensure that the court has jurisdiction and that procedural requirements are followed carefully.
What a worldwide freezing order does
A freezing order, sometimes referred to as a freezing injunction or Mareva injunction, is designed to prevent a defendant from disposing of assets that could otherwise be used to satisfy a judgment.
- A worldwide freezing order extends that protection beyond England & Wales to assets held anywhere in the world.
- These orders are often sought in cases involving fraud, asset dissipation or complex cross-border disputes.
They are typically granted on an urgent basis and often without notice to the defendant. This allows the claimant to secure assets before the defendant has an opportunity to move them.
Search data indicates continuing interest in freezing orders and related remedies as tools for protecting claims in civil litigation.
The issue before the High Court
The case concerned whether the English court had jurisdiction to grant or maintain a worldwide freezing order against the defendant.
Jurisdiction is a critical element of any freezing order application.
- The claimant must demonstrate that the English court is the appropriate forum for the claim and that it has authority over the defendant or the relevant dispute.
- Where jurisdiction is lacking, the court may discharge the order even if the claimant has a potentially strong substantive case.
In this instance, the court concluded that the jurisdictional requirements had not been satisfied.
As a result, the worldwide freezing order was discharged.
Why jurisdiction matters in freezing order applications
Freezing orders are considered exceptional remedies.
Because they can restrict a defendant’s ability to deal with assets before liability has been determined, courts require strict compliance with legal and procedural requirements.
Among the most important of these is jurisdiction.
Claimants must demonstrate a sufficient connection between the dispute and the English courts. This may involve factors such as the location of assets, contractual jurisdiction clauses or the place where alleged wrongdoing occurred.
If the court determines that another jurisdiction is the more appropriate forum, it may refuse or discharge the order.
The importance of careful preparation
Freezing order applications are usually made at speed and often involve complex cross-border issues.
However, urgency does not remove the need for careful legal analysis.
Applications must address several key elements, including:
- whether the court has jurisdiction
- whether there is a good arguable case
- whether there is a real risk of asset dissipation
- whether the order is proportionate
Failing to address any of these issues properly can expose the order to challenge at the return hearing.
It is at that stage that defendants frequently apply to discharge the injunction.
The risks of getting it wrong
Where a freezing order is discharged, the consequences can be significant.
The claimant may lose the protection over the defendant’s assets. In addition, the claimant may face arguments that the order should never have been granted.
Because freezing orders are normally obtained on a without notice basis, claimants also owe the court a duty of full and frank disclosure.
If that duty is breached, the court may discharge the order regardless of the strength of the underlying claim.
A reminder for parties involved in asset recovery
The decision illustrates the care required when pursuing urgent asset protection measures.
Freezing orders remain one of the most effective tools for preserving assets during litigation, particularly in fraud and asset recovery cases.
However, they are also heavily scrutinised by the courts.
For claimants, the lesson is clear. Jurisdictional analysis and procedural compliance are essential before seeking such relief.
For defendants, the case demonstrates that freezing orders can be challenged successfully where the legal requirements have not been met.
These guys are highly recommended, professional and straight talking. Kept me fully in the picture and gave me a kick when needed. If you are in need of their services pick up the phone, you will not regret it!
A client whom we successfully assisted with a freezing order
