Our expert team reviews the recent Court of Appeal’s decision on foreign third parties and the effect on freezing order enforcement
Introduction
In Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd v Su [2025] EWCA Civ 1389, the Court of Appeal has confirmed that foreign third parties who assist in the breach of an English worldwide freezing order may face civil liability, even where they are based outside the jurisdiction. The decision significantly strengthens the position of claimants seeking to prevent asset dissipation and pursue those who help defendants move assets beyond reach.
This is an important development for judgment creditors, fraud victims, and parties relying on freezing injunctions as part of asset recovery strategy.
What was the case about?
The case concerned an English worldwide freezing order made against a defendant who dissipated the proceeds from two villa sales in Monaco with the assistance of foreign third parties , including a Monegasque lawyer. The claimant alleged that those foreign third parties had knowingly helped to frustrate the freezing order.
At first instance, the High Court took a restrictive view, finding that claims against overseas third parties were limited where the assistance occurred outside the English courts’ jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal disagreed, finding that there was no defence to liability simply because an individual was outside the English courts’ territorial jurisdiction.
The territorial reach of English freezing orders is therefore not confined by the location of those who assist in their breach.
Can foreign third parties now be liable for assisting breaches of freezing orders?
The short answer is Yes.
- The Court of Appeal confirmed that foreign third parties may be liable under unlawful means conspiracy where they knowingly assist in the breach of an English worldwide freezing order.
- The court emphasised that a worldwide freezing order is an order of the English court, binding on the defendant wherever assets are held. Those who knowingly help the defendant to breach that order can therefore expose themselves to liability, even if they are located abroad and foreign law allows such assistance.
This is particularly relevant to banks, professional advisers, intermediaries, and offshore service providers.
It is clear that geographic distance alone will not shield third parties from liability if they assist in breaching a freezing injunction.
Why does unlawful means conspiracy matter in freezing order cases?
Unlawful means conspiracy provides a powerful cause of action where two or more parties combine and intend to injure a claimant through/using unlawful conduct.
- In the context of freezing orders, the unlawful act is the breach of the court order itself. If a third party knowingly participates in that breach, the claimant may pursue them directly for losses caused by the dissipation of assets.
- This significantly enhances enforcement options where defendants use offshore structures or overseas facilitators to move funds.
A key takeaway is that Claimants are no longer limited to only pursuing the defendant where asset dissipation is coordinated through third parties.
How does this decision strengthen worldwide freezing orders?
Worldwide freezing orders are designed to preserve assets pending judgment. Their effectiveness depends on deterrence and enforceability.
By confirming that third parties can be pursued even when they are based outside of the jurisdiction, the Court of Appeal has reinforced the practical bite of freezing orders. The decision discourages facilitation of breaches and increases the risks for those who assist defendants behind the scenes.
It also improves the prospects of recovery where assets have already been moved abroad in breach of the order.
What should defendants and third parties do differently?
Defendants subject to freezing orders must ensure strict compliance and avoid informal arrangements involving third parties. Third parties, particularly financial institutions and advisers, should carry out careful checks where they become aware of an English freezing order.
Ignoring or downplaying the existence of such an order now carries heightened risk.
Early legal advice is essential where there is any doubt about whether a transaction might breach a freezing injunction.
Why this matters for fraud and asset recovery claims
This decision is important. It aligns with the English courts’ broader approach to protecting the integrity of their orders and preventing the deliberate frustration of justice.
- For claimants, it expands the pool of potential defendants and increases leverage in negotiations.
- For defendants and third parties, it raises the stakes of non-compliance.
It is a clear signal that English freezing orders are intended to have real global effect.
