The Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2025 (SI 2025/106) came into force on 6 April 2025. They modernise interim remedies under CPR Part 25 and sit alongside updated judicial model orders for freezing injunctions, proprietary and freezing injunctions, and search or imaging orders. If you are applying for one of these orders, or you have been served with one, the changes affect what you file, how you serve it, and what happens at the return date. They also bring a clearer focus on the duty of full and frank disclosure on without notice applications and in the scope and strength of cross undertakings in damages. This note explains what changed and what to do now.
What actually changed on 6 April 2025?
The legal base matters. The changes start with SI 2025/106, which amends the CPR from 6 April 2025. The effect is a refreshed framework for interim remedies under Part 25. That framework is supported by revised judicial model orders for freezing injunctions. There is one for a standard freezing order and another for a proprietary and freezing order where you also claim that the assets are yours. The judiciary has also refreshed the approach to search and imaging orders so that orders are clearer, execution is more controlled, and the return date is used to manage the case.
The core tests have not been watered down. You still need a good arguable case. You still need to show a real risk of dissipation. You still need to persuade the court that it is just and convenient to grant relief. What is different is the clarity and consistency expected in the papers. Judges now expect drafts to begin with the updated model orders. If you need to depart from the wording, you should mark that change and explain why it is necessary on the facts. That is not box-ticking. It is about proportionality, intelligibility for respondents and third parties, and ease of execution.
Search and imaging orders remain exceptional. The bar to obtain one is high. The updated approach aims to make them safer to execute and easier to supervise. The court still expects precision over locations, devices and data, a clear role for the supervising solicitor, and strong safeguards for privilege and confidentiality.
How do the model orders change what I file and serve?
Begin with the right template. If you assert a proprietary claim to particular assets and also want the wider restraint that a freezing order provides, you should use the proprietary and freezing model order. If you only seek to restrain assets generally, the standard freezing order model will be the starting point. Using the correct model reduces argument at the hearing and helps the judge grant relief that matches the case theory.
Treat the model wording as a baseline. The court expects you to justify any change. If you widen definitions, extend the territorial reach, lengthen the time for service, or add novel disclosure duties, you should call that out and explain the case specific reason. If you narrow the order to reduce disruption, explain that as well. The court’s aim is an order that is clear, proportionate and workable.
Think about third parties. Banks, exchanges and other custodians must be able to understand and act on the order quickly. The updated wording helps, but you should still make service easy. Provide the correct contact points if you have them. Use a short covering note in plain English. Tell third parties what they must do, by when, and how to ask for clarification. That reduces delay, cost and risk.
On service to the respondent, build in a realistic timetable for the asset disclosure required by the order. The model wording addresses ordinary living expenses and reasonable business expenses. Do not ignore those points. They are often the practical issues that dominate the return date.
What has changed for evidence, disclosure and undertakings?
The evidence has to be balanced and complete. On a without notice application you must give full and frank disclosure of all material facts. That includes adverse points. It includes obvious gaps in your case. It includes alternative explanations that a fair opponent would raise. It includes the practical impact on the respondent and on third parties, for example a bank that will have to act at speed. The duty is strict. If you do not comply, the court can discharge the order even if you had an arguable case.
Present the case so a judge can absorb it quickly. Use a neutral chronology. Signpost where the risk of dissipation comes from. If you rely on tracing of funds, make it clear and digestible. Avoid jargon. Assume the judge will have limited time and no patience for speculation. The models and the new practice tone reward discipline in the papers.
Undertakings still do the heavy lifting. A cross undertaking in damages is central to any interim injunction. You promise to compensate the respondent if the order was wrongly granted and loss is caused. The court will test whether the undertaking is meaningful given the scale of disruption. In some cases you will be asked to fortify the undertaking. That might be by payment into court, a bank guarantee, or other security. If there is likely to be third party exposure, for example banks that will incur compliance costs or risk claims, be ready to address who benefits from the undertaking and on what terms. Deal with this upfront. It improves your credibility and can be decisive on proportionality.
What should applicants do now to move fast and stay compliant?
Start with dissipation risk. The strongest applications show concrete risk, not suspicion. Point to patterns of asset movement, control of shell companies, and the timing of transfers. Tie that to the size of the claim and the ease with which assets could be moved again. Keep the narrative short and clear.
Draft to the model order. Choose the correct template. Mark and justify any departures. If you need extra measures, explain why they are necessary and proportionate on the facts. If you can accept narrower relief, say so. It helps on the balance of convenience.
Prepare for the return date before you go without notice. Propose directions that let the respondent prepare, but do not leave the claimant exposed. A sensible return-date timetable usually includes service deadlines, a clear schedule for the respondent’s asset disclosure, a realistic window for any evidence in answer, and a pathway for variation or discharge to be heard quickly if there are genuine issues. The new framework encourages that discipline.
Anticipate third party issues. If the order will be served on banks or exchanges, make sure your schedule of accounts and entities is accurate. Include practical contact details where you can. Consider time zones if assets or custodians are overseas. If execution will affect employees or suppliers, think about carve outs that allow ordinary trading to continue while still preserving assets.
Do not skimp on the cross undertaking. Address likely loss and cost exposure honestly. Consider whether fortification will be sought and how you would provide it. Put your client in a position to answer the court on the day.
What should respondents and third parties do differently under the updated regime?
If you are served, comply immediately. Contempt is a real risk. Read the order carefully. The model wording helps you see what you must do. Complete the asset disclosure on time. If parts of the order are unclear or unworkable, keep a contemporaneous note and raise that at the return date or by urgent application if needed.
Use the return date to narrow and clarify. Ask whether the order tracks the model. Challenge departures that were not justified. Press for tighter definitions, a clear geographic scope, sensible carve outs for ordinary living or business expenses, and a realistic schedule for asset disclosure. The updated framework gives the court permission to keep relief proportionate and targeted. Help the court do that.
Third parties should engage early. Confirm receipt. Freeze what must be frozen, and only that. Ask for clarification where needed. The modernised wording should make compliance easier, but do not guess. If a bank faces material cost or risk, it can ask the court for directions and for the benefit of the claimant’s undertaking. The new culture supports that practicality.
On search and imaging orders, insist on precision and supervision. The supervising solicitor has a key role. If execution strays beyond what the order allows, record it and seek directions at once. Privilege and confidentiality protections are non-negotiable.
Does the April 2025 framework change costs, timing or return-date strategy?
The costs principles remain familiar. Costs often follow the event but the court can reserve or re-allocate interim costs. Applicants should plan for the real cost of compliance, including service on third parties, the cross undertaking exposure, and possible fortification. Respondents should use the return date to press for efficiency. That might include narrowing disclosure, limiting the scope of third party notifications, and putting sensible limits on affidavits and exhibits so that the interim stage does not become a mini trial.
Timing should improve for well prepared cases because judges now see more consistent drafting. The fastest route to an order is still a tight, balanced case that is easy to grant and easy to police. The model orders are a scaffold for that. They are not a shortcut. If you try to push beyond what is needed, expect pushback at the return date.
Strategically, treat the return date as a genuine case management hearing. It is an opportunity to refine the order to what is necessary, preserve value, and reduce unnecessary harm. Agree staged disclosure where that will keep a business trading while you test the claim. Build a short timetable for any variation or discharge application. If there are urgent issues, identify them early for the court.
How does this sit alongside recent practice and case law?
The direction of travel is consistent. Courts continue to stress strict compliance with the duty of full and frank disclosure on without notice applications. They continue to expect clear evidence of a real risk of dissipation. They continue to enforce the balance of convenience with careful use of undertakings and carve outs. The 2025 changes do not lower the bar. They make it easier for merit to be granted quickly and for overreach to be corrected at the return date.
For public law freezing tools, such as property freezing orders or account freezing orders in the tax and proceeds of crime context, the same themes appear. Urgency, clarity and candour are vital. If you operate in that space, consider whether you also need related relief such as Norwich Pharmacal orders to obtain information from innocent third parties, or validation orders where a winding up petition has triggered a bank freeze. Those tools should be used with care and only where they fit the facts.
What is the FWJ view for SMEs, directors and professionals?
These orders protect value. They can also cause serious disruption if they are too broad or poorly drafted. The modernised framework helps everyone by promoting clear, proportionate orders that are easier to understand and execute. For claimants, that means quicker, more reliable relief when the evidence is there. For respondents and third parties, it means a better chance to narrow unfair burdens and to keep legitimate business going while the dispute is resolved.
Our team prepares and defends interim relief applications every week. We draft to the models. We justify any departure. We front-load the evidence on risk and proportionality. When you are on the receiving end, we move fast to secure compliance, protect operations, and prepare for variation or discharge at the return date. We work with in-house teams and advisers to minimise cost and maximise results.
If you need urgent interim relief, or you have just been served with an order, we can help today.
