The court was asked to consider how it should exercise its discretion to order a world-wide asset freezing order.
Held: It dismissed the appeal in this case, but took the opportunity to provide eight guidelines for the way in which the discretion should be exercised.
Arden LJ: ‘Guideline 1: The principle applying to the grant of permission to enforce a WFO abroad is that the grant of that permission should be just and convenient for the purpose of ensuring the effectiveness of the WFO, and in addition that it is not oppressive to the parties to the English proceedings or to third parties who may be joined to the foreign proceedings.
Guideline 2: All the relevant circumstances and options need to be considered. In particular consideration should be given to granting relief on terms, for example terms as to the extension to third parties of the undertaking to compensate for costs incurred as a result of the WFO and as to the type of proceedings that may be commenced abroad. Consideration should also be given to the proportionality of the steps proposed to be taken abroad, and in addition to the form of any order.
Guideline 3: The interests of the applicant should be balanced against the interests of the other parties to the proceedings and any new party likely to be joined to the foreign proceedings.
Guideline 4: Permission should not normally be given in terms that would enable the applicant to obtain relief in the foreign proceedings which is superior to the relief given by the WFO.
Guideline 5: The evidence in support of the application for permission should contain all the information (so far as it can reasonably be obtained in the time available) necessary to make the judge to reach an informed decision, including evidence as to the applicable law and practice in the foreign court, evidence as to the nature of the proposed proceedings to be commenced and evidence as to the assets believed to be located in the jurisdiction of the foreign court and the names of the parties by whom such assets are held.
Guideline 6: The standard of proof as to the existence of assets that are both within the WFO and within the jurisdiction of the foreign court is a real prospect, that is the applicant must show that there is a real prospect that such assets are located within the jurisdiction of the foreign court in question.
Guideline 7: There must be evidence of a risk of dissipation of the assets in question.
Guideline 8: Normally the application should be made on notice to the respondent, but in cases of urgency, where it is just to do so, the permission may be given without notice to the party against whom relief will be sought in the foreign proceedings but that party should have the earliest practicable opportunity of having the matter reconsidered by the court at a hearing of which he is given notice.’
Lord Justice Ward Lady Justice Arden Lord Justice Moore-Bick
 EWCA Civ 399, Times 23-May-2006,  3 All ER 48
Cicil Procedure Rules 825
England and Wales
Cited – Derby and Co Ltd v Weldon CA 2-Jan-1989
The plaintiff sought damages for breach of contract, for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and deceit and conspiracy. It sought a world-wide injunction.
Held: A freezing order (Mareva injunction) can be made in respect of assets which were . .
See Also – Dadourian Group International Inc and others v Simms and others ChD 24-Nov-2006
The Claimants sought, principally, damages for fraudulent misrepresentation and conspiracy against the first to fourth Defendants and damages for breach of contract against the third and fourth Defendants.
Ownership and control of a company are . .
See Also – Dadourian Group International Inc and others v Simms and others CA 20-Dec-2006
The court considered the exercise by the court of its discretion to release a party who has obtained a freezing order from his undertaking not to use information obtained from the party against whom the freezing order is made in contempt proceedings . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 January 2021; Ref: scu.240358