UK Trends and Developments Contributed by: Phillip D’Costa, Richard Marshall, Sophie Newman and Harriet Campbell, Penningtons Manches Cooper LLP
(including Norwich Pharmacal and Bankers Trust orders) against exchanges and other third-party inter - mediaries increasingly creatively. Worldwide freezing orders are a crucial element in a fraud lawyer’s weaponry, but recent decisions show it is crucial to understand the basis and scope of any relief against respondents outside the jurisdiction. The jurisdictional gateways In Gilbert v Broadoak Private Finance Ltd [2026] EWHC 153 (KB), the court discharged a worldwide freezing order against respondents in Spain on the basis that it did not have jurisdiction over them. While the claim had a reasonable prospect of success, it did not fit within any of the clearly (and tightly) defined procedural “gateways” for serving the claim out of the jurisdiction. Here, the court was asked to grant an order against a third party on the basis that assets held in the name of a third party would be available to satisfy judgment against the defendant (known as the “Chabra” jurisdiction). Where those “Chabra” respondents are based outside the court’s jurisdiction, the court needs to be satis - fied that the application can pass through one of the jurisdictional gateways. Here, despite the claim having reasonable prospects, none of the gateways applied. The court recognised that the outcome here was “harsh” on the claimants (who otherwise had a good claim for relief) but held that there is presently no “gen - eral power” to serve proceedings outside the juris - diction to assist enforcement of an English judgment debt. As fraudsters move money ever further and fast - er across borderless cryptocurrency platforms, it may be that the English courts revise the civil procedure rules to address this issue. Jurisdictional scope of conspiracy to facilitate breach of freezing orders On the other hand, the English courts have recently highlighted the reach of their powers by confirming that claims for unlawful means conspiracy against individuals who facilitate breaches of freezing orders can be brought against individuals resident outside the jurisdiction.
In Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd v Su [2025] EWCA Civ 1389, the Court of Appeal held that a lawyer who car - ried out his client’s instructions to transfer funds in breach of an English worldwide freezing order, outside of the jurisdiction in Monaco, was liable for unlawful means conspiracy. English worldwide freezing orders typically contain a provision that “the terms of this order do not affect or concern anyone outside the jurisdiction of this court” apart from the respondent and other specified exceptions. However, the Court of Appeal held this does not mean that individuals out - side the territorial jurisdiction of the English court have a defence to liability for unlawful means conspiracy. This is a significant ruling, increasing the power and scope of English freezing orders. Anyone who assists in the breach of such an order, wherever they are located, may potentially be liable in damages in the English courts. Scope of freezing orders in support of foreign proceedings The recent case of Hughes v Bellamy [2026] EWHC 237 (Ch) showed the court’s willingness to grant injunctive relief (including freezing orders) in support of foreign proceedings (under Section 25 Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 – CJJA). In this case, the parties were equal shareholders in, and directors of, an Isle of Man company. Following evidenced concerns of a risk of dissipation, an injunction was granted to freeze assets of two English companies in support of parallel unfair prejudice proceedings in the Isle of Man. This significant ruling highlights the pragmatic approach favoured by the English courts. Where appropriate evidence and urgency can be shown, s.25 CJJA can be a useful tool to preserve English assets pending determination of foreign proceed - ings. The judgment also provides helpful guidance for legal practitioners in cross-border shareholder dis - putes to consider such an application at the earliest stage where there is a meaningful risk of assets being
moved before the foreign court can act. Asset Recovery – Substantial Gains
The English courts have all the tools to help freeze and trace assets, and, at the conclusion of proceedings, there is a clear pro-enforcement stance in this jurisdic -
375 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook