Freezing Order

An interim court order that prevents a party from dealing with, moving, hiding, or disposing of their assets (or specified assets) until the case is resolved — also called a freezing injunction, and historically known as a Mareva injunction. In family court, a freezing order is most often used in financial remedy proceedings where one spouse is, or is about to, dissipate assets to defeat the other's claim: for example, transferring a property to a relative, emptying a bank account, or moving money offshore before a financial settlement can be reached. The order 'freezes' the assets in place so there's something left to divide when the court makes its final decision. A freezing order is an emergency, interim remedy — it's made before final hearing, usually on a without-notice (ex parte) basis where the other party isn't given warning because giving notice would let them move the assets first, and it's designed to preserve the status quo rather than decide who owns the assets. Because it's a draconian order that interferes with a party's property rights, the applicant must give full and frank disclosure of all material facts (including anything that might help the other side), must show a good arguable case on the merits, and must demonstrate that there's a real risk the assets will be dissipated if the order isn't made. The order can cover assets in England and Wales or worldwide (a 'worldwide freezing order'). It's not permanent: it lasts until a specified return date or until further order, and the other party can apply to vary or discharge it. Breach of a freezing order is contempt of court, punishable by imprisonment or a fine. It's a powerful tool for a litigant who fears their spouse is about to make off with the assets — but the court grants it sparingly and only on strong evidence, because of the serious consequences for the party whose assets are frozen.