Freezing orders and disclosure: preventing dissipation while you investigate

In high net worth divorce cases one immediate and practical risk dominates many disputes: the rapid dissipation of assets. Whether by design or panic, transfers to third parties, conversions into hard‑to‑trace forms, or cross‑border moves can erode the matrimonial pot before the court can make a fair order. Freezing orders, properly combined with targeted disclosure, give you the best chance to preserve value while you investigate ownership and prepare a durable settlement. In this guide I explain the law in England and Wales, practical criteria for obtaining freezing relief, how freezing measures interact with disclosure obligations, and the tactical steps I routinely take to protect clients’ financial positions.

Why freezing orders matter in high net worth divorces

High net worth families often hold complex portfolios: private companies, offshore trusts, art and jewellery, cryptocurrency, property portfolios and multi‑jurisdictional bank accounts. These assets move fast. A spouse facing a claim may transfer funds to a trust, sell assets to a nominee, move crypto to cold wallets, or siphon cash through payment processors. Once value disappears recovery becomes costly or impossible. Freezing orders prevent that immediate erosion. They give the court time to examine the facts, compel disclosure, and make orders that reflect the real economic position.

Legal foundation for freezing orders in family proceedings

English courts derive freezing orders in family proceedings from their equitable jurisdiction and from established civil principles. The family court can issue interim proprietary or personal injunctions restraining a person from dealing with assets pending trial. Judges apply established tests drawn from civil jurisprudence, adapted to the family context and the Family Procedure Rules. The classic criteria I address when seeking freezing relief are:

– Good arguable case on the substantive issue. The applicant must show a realistic prospect of succeeding on the merits of their financial claim.

– Real risk of dissipation. Evidence must show a real and imminent danger that the respondent will dissipate or remove assets to frustrate any future order.

– Assets within the court’s jurisdiction or capable of being restrained. The proposed order should identify assets or persons over which the court can assert authority.

– Full and frank disclosure and undertakings. The party seeking interim relief must present the court with a complete and honest account of material facts and give an undertaking as to damages if the order was wrongly granted.

Courts balance these factors with proportionality, the risk of harm to third parties, and the need to avoid oppressive or unnecessary restraint.

Types of freezing orders and their scope

Freezing orders in family cases typically take several forms. Choosing the correct one depends on the evidence and the asset profile.

– Personal freezing injunctions against the respondent: These restrain the respondent from disposing of or dealing with assets up to a specified value. They apply to assets in the respondent’s name or under their control.

– Asset‑specific freezing orders: The order identifies particular assets or accounts to be frozen, such as a bank account, a property, or a listed investment. These orders are precise and reduce collateral interference with unrelated business.

– Mareva style global freezing orders: Broader in scope, these orders seek to restrain assets wherever located, up to a maximum value. Courts grant them only when the applicant demonstrates strong connection to the assets and a real risk of dissipation abroad.

– Freezing orders against third parties: When assets sit with banks, custodians or corporate service providers the court can order those third parties to refrain from dealing with the assets or to preserve records.

– Proprietary injunctions: Where there is a claim to property as a matter of equitable title, the court may make orders that preserve that property pending determination of ownership.

I choose the form that balances urgency, enforceability and proportionality given the client’s objectives.

Preparing a compelling freezing application

Preparation matters. Courts expect a clear evidential foundation and proportional orders. My preparation typically includes:

1. Establish a coherent factual narrative

I set out, with supporting documents, why the claimant has a good arguable case. That often involves an initial Form E, bank statements, corporate records, contracts, emails and contemporaneous documents that show ownership, benefit or transfers.

2. Demonstrate the real risk of dissipation

I produce evidence of transfers, recent attempts to move assets, sudden changes to corporate structures, or patterns suggesting concealment. Witness statements from bank personnel, corporate service providers or expert forensic accountants can be decisive.

3. Identify assets and compute a realistic maximum value

Orders must specify amounts and assets. I identify the most important assets first — bank accounts, company shares, key properties, custodial accounts. I compute a realistic maximum value to ask for rather than an open ended freeze that courts dislike.

4. Target enforcementable parties and jurisdictions

Where possible I frame orders that bind persons or entities within the court’s reach. For foreign assets I identify intermediaries with UK presence, payment processors or correspondent banks that will respond to English process.

5. Propose balanced undertakings and disclosure

I offer undertakings to the court and propose specific disclosure obligations for both parties. Full and frank disclosure from the applicant improves credibility. I also propose confidentiality provisions if sensitive business information appears in the application.

6. Engage experts early

Forensic accountants, digital forensics teams and valuation experts provide the technical evidence the court needs. Their initial reports convert transactional data into clear tracing and dissipation narratives.

Ex parte applications: when to seek urgent freezing without notice

Where tipping off the respondent would enable immediate dissipation, I pursue ex parte relief. Ex parte applications demand careful drafting and strict candour. The applicant must:

– Demonstrate urgent need and that notice would frustrate the order’s purpose.

– Provide full and frank disclosure of all material facts, including adverse matters and any circumstances that might weaken the case. Omission risks setting aside the order and costs consequences.

– Propose precise limited relief and short return dates so the respondent can challenge the order promptly.

I use ex parte relief sparingly and only when the risk of dissipation justifies the temporary absence of notice.

How freezing orders interact with disclosure obligations

Freezing orders and disclosure obligations are mutually reinforcing. A freeze preserves assets while disclosure locates hidden value and clarifies ownership. My tactical approach links the two:

– Combine freezing applications with specific disclosure schedules. I request immediate production of bank statements account opening forms, transaction histories, and corporate records. This link helps the court see the necessity of preserving assets while evidence arrives.

– Seek Norwich Pharmacal orders where third parties hold identifying records. Banks, formation agents, custodians and exchanges often have KYC files and transactional logs that expose beneficial owners. Norwich Pharmacal returns frequently reveal asset locations that justify targeted freezing abroad.

– Use disclosure returns to narrow freezing scope. Once disclosure identifies particular accounts or assets I amend freezing orders to target them precisely, reducing inconvenience to innocent third parties.

– Insist on preservation clauses in disclosure orders. When a third party produces records I require undertakings that those records will not be destroyed or altered while litigation proceeds.

A co‑ordinated freezing and disclosure strategy speeds discovery and reduces cost.

Dealing with complex asset classes: shares, trusts, crypto, art and property

Different assets raise different practical and legal challenges when freezing and seeking disclosure.

– Corporate shares and private companies: I target share transfer forms, nominee agreements, dividend records and director loan accounts. Freezing corporate bank accounts or pursuing derivative relief against companies often prevents value extraction. In many cases a freezing order against the respondent’s bank accounts will block immediate access to proceeds from share sales.

– Trusts and offshore structures: Trustees often sit outside the English court’s immediate reach. I target intermediaries with UK connections, such as banks or formation agents, and use Norwich Pharmacal orders to obtain trustee records. Freezing orders against trust distributions or against corporate vehicles within the jurisdiction can limit immediate dissipation.

– Cryptocurrency: Crypto presents particular challenges because transfers occur instantly and can move into cold storage. I seek freezing orders aimed at custodial exchange accounts or payment processors, and I issue preservation requests to exchanges. Blockchain analytics helps identify on chain flows early so the court can act against custodial points of control.

– Art and high value chattels: I ask for injunctions preventing sale or export pending delivery of inventory lists and provenance documents. Where galleries, storage facilities or insurers sit within reach I seek orders compelling them to preserve and disclose records.

– Real estate: Land Registry titles and conveyancing files provide immediate leverage. I use orders that prohibit sale or further charging of specified titles and seek production of transfer deeds, mortgage paperwork and settlement statements.

In each context I match the legal remedy to the asset’s practical means of transfer and preservation.

Third party and bank resistance: how to secure compliance

Banks and service providers often resist freezing orders on privacy, regulatory or commercial grounds. I adopt a pragmatic approach:

– Draft orders that minimise disruption to third parties by limiting scope, timescale and access restrictions. Courts respond better to narrow, proportionate orders.

– Offer confidentiality measures and protective regimes that reassure banks about customer privacy while preserving records for litigation.

– Demonstrate the legal basis for compulsion and offer undertakings as to handling sensitive data. Banks typically comply where legal obligations and reputational risks are clear.

– Pursue enforcement measures, including contempt proceedings, where parties flout orders. Civil contempt remains a strong deterrent.

Enforcement and cross‑border execution

Enforcement is crucial. An order means little unless it can be enforced against the relevant party or intermediary.

– Use targeted service on UK based branches, correspondent banks and payment processors to secure domestic compliance.

– Where assets sit abroad, use Norwich Pharmacal returns to identify local custodians and instruct foreign counsel to seek parallel freezing measures or recognition of English orders.

– Consider mutual legal assistance, letters of request and cooperation with foreign regulators, especially in jurisdictions that respond to banking or anti‑money laundering pressure.

– Pursue contempt and enforcement proceedings rapidly where defiance appears, including injunctions against third party transferees who receive value in breach of the order.

Prompt enforcement preserves the court’s authority and deters opportunistic transfers.

Confidentiality and reputation management

High net worth clients often fear the reputational effects of freezing orders. I manage these concerns by:

– Seeking sealed or partially sealed orders where public filing would disclose sensitive business information. The court will usually permit redactions and sealed exhibits where required.

– Proposing confidentiality rings to limit access to experts, counsel and accountants named in the order.

– Using targeted Norwich Pharmacal and production orders rather than broad public proceedings where possible.

– Exploring private negotiation once key disclosure emerges so parties can settle quietly on fair terms.

Courts recognise the need to protect legitimate privacy interests alongside the need for disclosure.

Cost, proportionality and client decision making

Freezing litigation can be expensive. I advise clients transparently on costs, likely outcomes and strategic trade offs:

– Prioritise assets and orders that produce the most leverage for the lowest cost. A targeted freezing order against a few key bank accounts often yields disclosure that unmasks wider holdings.

– Consider staged strategies that begin with narrow emergency relief followed by broader orders if disclosure supports escalation.

– Explore funding options including litigation finance where prospective recoveries justify the expense.

– Remember that courts weigh proportionality when granting injunctions; overly broad or speculative applications can fail and produce adverse costs orders.

A pragmatic cost benefit analysis prevents unnecessary escalation while protecting core interests.

Practical checklist before seeking freezing relief

– Gather documentary evidence: bank statements, Form E, corporate filings, correspondent banking details and contemporaneous emails.

– Trace suspected dissipation routes and identify custodians with UK nexus.

– Instruct forensic accountants, blockchain analysts or valuation experts as appropriate.

– Prepare a precise list of assets and a realistic maximum value for the freeze.

– Draft narrow, enforceable orders with clear schedules and preservation clauses.

– Consider whether ex parte relief is necessary and prepare full and frank disclosure affidavits.

– Propose confidentiality and privilege review protocols to protect sensitive material.

– Plan enforcement steps including foreign counsel where assets sit overseas.

– Budget for expert fees and staged litigation options.

– Keep negotiation channels open once disclosure gives you leverage.

Conclusion — act swiftly, act precisely, protect value

Freezing orders and disclosure form the frontline defence against asset dissipation in high net worth divorces. The combination of immediate preservation, targeted disclosure and expert forensic work usually determines whether you recover the true marital value. My practice focuses on rapid fact gathering, precisely drafted freezing orders, sensible proportionality and careful reputation management so clients retain bargaining power and secure fair outcomes. If you suspect imminent dissipation contact us at Alexander JLO. We will assess the urgency, map the asset footprint and pursue the freezing and disclosure measures necessary to protect your financial future.

Alexander JLO we have many years of experience of dealing with all aspects of family law and will be happy to discuss your case in a free no obligation consultation. Why not call us on +44 (0)20 7537 7000, email us at info@london-law.co.uk or get in touch via the contact us button and see what we can do for you?

This blog was prepared by Peter Johnson on 27th November 2025 and is correct at the time of going to press. With over forty years of experience in almost all areas of law Peter is happy to assist with any legal issue that you have. He is widely regarded as one of London’s leading divorce lawyers. His profile on the independent Review Solicitor website can be found Here.

To follow up on any of the above please contact Guy Wilton of our family department. Guy has wide experience of acting for the firm’s clients, their family and their businesses. Guy’s experience as a lawyer started in the Northern and Welsh Circuits, including the Liverpool Courts, where he represented numerous clients after being called to the Bar, before opting to join Alexander JLO in 2017 and qualifying as a solicitor in 2024. He is a highly experienced family lawyer with a particular interest in financial remedy proceedings and child contact disputes.

Guy’s profile on the independent Review Solicitor website can be viewed here.