Worldwide Freezing Injunctions: Strength, Strategy and Strict Limits

A worldwide freezing injunction (WFO) is one of the most powerful remedies available to preserve assets ahead of enforcement. It can prevent defendants and, in appropriate cases, third parties (against whom there is no direct cause of action) from dealing with assets across multiple jurisdictions, reducing the risk of dissipation before an eventual judgment is enforced. This is particularly important where assets are held through individuals or corporate structures designed to frustrate recovery. However, a recent High Court decision underlines an important warning for businesses: even where there is a strong risk of asset dissipation, failures to satisfy strict procedural or jurisdictional requirements can defeat an application for a WFO entirely. Early consideration of these issues is therefore critical, as a WFO may ultimately make the difference between successful recovery and no recovery at all.

What went wrong in Gilbert v Broadoak?

In Gilbert v Broadoak Private Finance Ltd [2026] EWHC 153 (KB), the High Court discharged a WFO against respondents in Spain, despite concluding that the claimants had a good claim in principle and that the requirements for ‘Chabra relief’ (freezing assets held by third parties rather than the defendant) had been met. The injunctive relief obtained at the without notice hearing was discharged on the return date because the court did not have jurisdiction over the third parties.  

What Is “Chabra Relief”?

In simple terms, the "Chabra jurisdiction" allows a freezing order to be granted against someone who is not the defendant in court proceedings and against whom there is no direct cause of action. It typically applies where a third party holds assets that actually belong to the defendant (or may be used to satisfy a judgment) and there is a risk the assets may be dissipated. This is extremely useful in practice, particularly in cases involving corporate structures, family members, offshore entities, and asset-holding companies. 

Practical pitfalls

The procedural gateways 

Where a respondent resides outside England and Wales, a claimant needs permission to serve an application notice on them. In order to obtain permission, claimants need to show that: 

• one of the jurisdictional gateways under the Civil Procedure Rules Practice Direction 6B, paragraph 3.1 applies;
• there is a good arguable case; and 
• the courts of England and Wales are the most appropriate forum for the proceedings.

The key procedural issue that arose in Gilbert v Broadoak was that the main claim against the defendant had been concluded and judgment handed down, meaning that there was no live claim against an “anchor” defendant on which the claimants could base their application to pursue “another person who is a necessary or proper party to the claim”. This is the only ground on which the courts of England and Wales have previously granted Chabra relief outside the jurisdiction. 

The claimants attempted to rely on other gateways, however, there was no authority supporting this approach: Chabra relief was not a claim to enforce a judgment against the defendant but ancillary relief to assist in enforcement, it was not relating to substantial property within the jurisdiction, and was not made under an applicable enactment. In the absence of the claimants being able to pass through any of the procedural gateways to enable service of the WFO out of the jurisdiction, the court concluded that it had no jurisdiction as against the Spanish respondents and as such could not allow the relief sought to continue. 

Whilst there was no criticism of the claimants for their timing of or decision to make the application for a WFO, the decision highlights a common enforcement trap where the ability to obtain certain protective measures  falls away as time passes or proceedings develop. This is a particular risk where information about the defendant’s assets and their location or custodianship is not available to the claimant until the much later in the proceedings.

The procedural jurisdictional gateways are extensive in scope but in this case the absence of a gateway that responded to the specific factual circumstances blocked the ability to maintain the injunctive relief of a WFO. 

The duty of full and frank disclosure

Freezing injunctions are usually applied for without notice to the respondent requiring claimants to provide full and frank disclosure of all relevant issues for the court to consider including those which the respondents would raise if they were present at the hearing. Applicants must therefore disclose all relevant facts, including weaknesses in the case, legal complexities or difficulties and any information that a respondent may wish to bring to the court’s attention if they were present. A failure to provide full and frank disclosure may result in any order obtained being discharged. In this case the court found that whilst the claimants had referred to there being some issues with the application of the jurisdictional gateways, the issues were in fact more complicated and uncertain than made out and it had not been brought to the judge’s attention that the reliance on the gateways cited was novel and lacked any direct support in authority, with some authorities being against it.

For more on the duties of full and frank disclosure in applications for freezing orders see: Incorrectly obtained or inadvertently lost? Freezing injunctions and the duty to give full and frank disclosure.

Learning points

1. Consider Asset Protection Early: Do not wait until judgment to think about enforcement. Ask early questions around where assets are located, whether third parties are holding assets, and what if any jurisdiction can be established over those third parties.
2. Timing Is Critical: Injunctive relief should always be applied for promptly once the applicable legal test is satisfied, however, be mindful that some grounds for injunctive relief can be diluted or disappear with the passage of time or after proceedings have been concluded, narrowing the enforcement options available. The decision highlights the need to investigate questions around asset recovery and to pursue protective measures at the earliest opportunity whilst the core proceedings are live, if possible.
3. Strong claims can still fail: A strong claim is not enough – satisfying the procedural requirements are equally as important for securing relief.