Freezing Orders in Divorce: What to Do If You Think Your Spouse Is Moving Money

General information only. This is not legal advice.

You may have spotted a large transfer on a statement. Your spouse may have mentioned selling a car, or a property may have been quietly moved into a relative's name. When one person controls most of the money in a marriage, it is common to fear there will be nothing left by the time the court decides how things are split.

The family court can step in to stop assets being sold, moved or hidden while financial proceedings are going on. It only does so on good evidence. This guide explains what the court can do, what it needs to see, the risks of applying, and the cheaper options that often work instead.

What might count as a warning sign

The court looks for behaviour that suggests someone is trying to put assets out of reach. Examples include:

• transferring property to a family member or friend shortly after proceedings start
• moving large sums into accounts you have no access to
• selling shares, savings or vehicles suddenly, or for well below their value
• taking out large amounts of cash, or moving money abroad
• suddenly "repaying" loans to relatives that were never mentioned before
• where there is a business: unusual dividends, director's loans, or payments to connected companies or people

One odd transaction is rarely enough. A pattern carries much more weight, particularly alongside comments such as "you won't get a penny".

What the court can do

A freezing order (sometimes called a freezing injunction) stops a person dealing with specified assets until the court decides the finances. It does not change who owns anything. It simply keeps things as they are.

There are two legal routes:

• Section 37 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. This lets the court stop a spouse making a disposition intended to defeat the other spouse's financial claim. It can also set aside a disposition that has already happened.
• The court's general power to grant injunctions. This is the wider "freezing injunction" power, which comes from section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981.

Section 37 of the MCA contains a presumption that matters. If a disposition that is about to happen would defeat your claim, the court presumes it is intended to do so unless your spouse shows otherwise. The same applies to a disposition made in the three years before your application. That shifts the burden onto the other side.

Freezing order applications in financial proceedings are normally heard in the Family Court at District Judge level. More complex or high value cases can be allocated to a High Court judge.

What the court needs to see

The leading case is UL v BK [2013] EWHC 1735 (Fam), decided by Mostyn J. In short, you need to show:

• an unjustified dealing with assets by the other party, and
• that this creates a solid risk that assets will be lost to your prejudice.

Suspicion is not enough, and neither is anger after a painful separation. The court wants objective evidence: bank statements, correspondence, Land Registry records, company filings, or a clear timeline of what has happened.

In urgent cases, an application can be made without telling the other side first, if warning them would give them time to move the assets. If you do this, you must give the court full and frank disclosure, including anything that hurts your case. If it later turns out something important was left out, the order can be discharged and you can be ordered to pay costs.

The risks for the person applying

These applications are not a routine step, and the court treats them seriously:

• The undertaking in damages. You will almost always have to promise the court that you will compensate the other party, and sometimes affected third parties such as a bank, for any loss if the order turns out to have been unjustified.
• Costs. Freezing order applications are urgent and evidence-heavy, so they cost more than ordinary steps in the case. If the application fails, you may be ordered to pay the other side's costs as well as your own.
• Timing. If you wait too long, it is harder to argue the matter is urgent, and the money may already be gone. If you rush in with weak evidence, you risk costs and losing credibility with the judge.

An order does not leave the other person unable to live. It will normally allow them to pay ordinary living expenses, run a business in the normal way, and pay for legal advice. Breaching the order is contempt of court, which can lead to a fine or imprisonment.

Options that may be quicker or cheaper

A full freezing order is not always needed:

• An undertaking. The other side may agree in writing, or by an undertaking to the court, not to deal with specific assets. This can achieve the same result at far lower cost.
• Home rights notice. If the family home is in your spouse's sole name, you can usually register a home rights notice under the Family Law Act 1996. It does not physically stop a sale, but any buyer or lender takes the property subject to your rights, which in practice deters a sale.
• Protecting a property adjustment claim. Where you have applied to the court for a property adjustment order, a notice can be registered against the property to warn buyers and lenders that the claim exists.
• Setting aside a transfer. If assets have already been moved to defeat your claim, section 37 lets the court set the transfer aside in many cases. Transfers to a buyer who paid a proper price in good faith, without knowing what was going on, are protected.
• Dealing with it at the final hearing. Where most of the assets are secure, the court can treat money that has been deliberately wasted or hidden as if it still exists when it divides the rest. This is sometimes called "add-back". In that situation an urgent application may not be worth the cost.

Gathering evidence the right way

Keep copies of anything you are entitled to see: joint account statements, letters and emails sent to you, and your own notes of dates and amounts. Do not log into your spouse's private email or bank accounts, or take their personal documents, without permission. The Court of Appeal in Imerman v Tchenguiz [2010] EWCA Civ 908 made clear that taking confidential documents can backfire badly, and it can damage an otherwise strong case.

Get advice from a solicitor

Freezing orders are an area where you should get a solicitor. Mostyn J criticised how many poorly evidenced applications were reaching the family courts, and the consequences of getting one wrong fall on the person applying:

• The undertaking in damages can leave you personally liable for the other side's losses, and sometimes those of third parties such as a bank.
• Without-notice applications carry a strict duty of full and frank disclosure. Missing something important can lose you the order and leave you paying costs.
• Deciding whether to apply at all means weighing the value of what is at risk against the cost of applying, and considering whether an undertaking, a Land Registry notice or add-back at the final hearing would do the job instead.

These are judgement calls about strategy and risk. They need a solicitor, not a McKenzie Friend.

If the solicitor takes on the application, a McKenzie Friend can still support you with the rest of your financial case, for example by organising your paperwork and coming to hearings with you. You can search for an independent McKenzie Friend in the free Bridge The Gap directory at familycourtbridge.org.

Law referred to

• Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, section 37
• Senior Courts Act 1981, section 37
• Family Law Act 1996 (home rights)
• UL v BK (Freezing Orders: Safeguards: Standard Examples) [2013] EWHC 1735 (Fam)
• Imerman v Tchenguiz [2010] EWCA Civ 908
• President's Guidance: Jurisdiction of the Family Court (2018)

---

This article is general information for people representing themselves. It is not legal advice and does not replace advice on your own circumstances.