Freezing Orders (Mareva Injunctions) Explained

What they are, how they work, and how to challenge them — across Hong Kong, Singapore, and the UK

A freezing order is one of the most powerful weapons in civil litigation. It prevents you from dealing with your own assets — your bank accounts, your property, your investments — before the court has even decided whether you owe anything to anyone. If you are subject to a freezing order, or you think one might be coming, you need to understand what it is, what it means, and what you can do about it.

What Is a Freezing Order?

A freezing order — historically called a Mareva injunction after the 1975 English case Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulkcarriers SA — is a court order that restrains a party from removing assets from the jurisdiction or from dealing with assets within the jurisdiction, up to a specified value. The purpose is to prevent a defendant from dissipating their assets before judgment, so that if the claimant wins, there are assets available to satisfy the judgment.

The freezing order does not transfer ownership of the assets. It does not give the claimant any proprietary interest. It simply prevents you from disposing of, dealing with, or diminishing the value of the assets below the threshold specified in the order. It is directed at you personally — if you breach it, you are in contempt of court, which can result in a fine or imprisonment.

The model is broadly the same across Hong Kong, Singapore, and the UK, though there are jurisdictional differences in the scope, procedure, and available challenges.

How Is a Freezing Order Obtained?

Freezing orders are almost always obtained on an ex parte basis — meaning the applicant applies to the court without giving you notice. This is deliberate: if you knew the application was coming, you could move your assets. The court hears the applicant's evidence, considers the legal test, and (if satisfied) makes the order immediately. You find out when the order is served on you.

In all three jurisdictions, the applicant must satisfy the court of the following elements.

A good arguable case. The applicant must show that they have a claim against you that is more than merely arguable. This is a higher threshold than for an ordinary interlocutory injunction (which requires only a "serious issue to be tried"). The court must be satisfied that the applicant's case has a real prospect of success.

A real risk of dissipation. The applicant must demonstrate, with evidence, that there is a real risk that you will move, hide, or dissipate your assets so as to frustrate any eventual judgment. This cannot be based on mere suspicion. The court will look for evidence of dishonesty, evasion, unexplained asset movements, or a pattern of conduct suggesting you will not honour a judgment.

Balance of convenience. The court must be satisfied that the potential harm to the applicant if the order is not made outweighs the potential harm to you if it is. In practice, this is addressed primarily through the cross-undertaking in damages (see below).

Full and frank disclosure. Because the application is made without notice, the applicant is under a duty of the utmost good faith. They must disclose to the court all material facts, including facts that are adverse to their case. This is one of the most important obligations in ex parte applications, and one of the most commonly breached.

The Cross-Undertaking in Damages

As a condition of obtaining a freezing order, the applicant must give a cross-undertaking to the court — a promise to compensate you for any loss you suffer as a result of the order if it turns out the order should not have been made (for example, if the claimant loses the case). In Hong Kong, the court may require the applicant to fortify this undertaking by paying money into court or providing a bank guarantee, particularly where there is doubt about the applicant's ability to pay.

This undertaking is important. If you successfully challenge the freezing order or win at trial, you can enforce the cross-undertaking to recover your losses. In practice, however, quantifying and recovering those losses can be difficult and time-consuming.

The Scope of the Order

A domestic freezing order covers assets within the jurisdiction up to a specified maximum value. The order will typically identify specific bank accounts and properties, but also catch any other assets you have within the jurisdiction.

A worldwide freezing order (WFO) goes further — it restrains you from dealing with assets anywhere in the world. WFOs are common in large fraud cases and are available in all three jurisdictions, though the court will exercise greater caution before making a worldwide order. The WFO will usually include a proviso that the order does not affect third parties outside the jurisdiction unless it has been recognised or enforced by the courts of that jurisdiction.

The order will also typically include a living expenses proviso, allowing you to spend a reasonable amount on ordinary living expenses and legal advice. It will also include a legal costs proviso, allowing you to use frozen funds to pay legal fees in the proceedings (subject to the court's control).

Third Party Effects

When a freezing order is made, the applicant will typically serve it on third parties who hold your assets — primarily banks. Once a bank is notified of the order, it must freeze the relevant accounts. The bank has no choice in this — assisting you to breach the order would put the bank in contempt of court.

This means that the practical effect of a freezing order can be far more severe than its legal scope suggests. Even assets that are theoretically unfrozen (because they fall below the threshold) may be effectively frozen because the bank adopts a cautious approach and freezes everything pending clarification.

How to Challenge a Freezing Order

If you have been served with a freezing order, you have several options. The order itself will specify a return date — the date on which the court will consider, on an inter partes basis (with both sides present), whether the order should continue.

Apply to discharge on the return date. This is your first opportunity to argue that the order should not continue. You can argue that the applicant does not have a good arguable case, that there is no real risk of dissipation, or that the balance of convenience favours discharge.

Apply to discharge for non-disclosure. If the applicant failed to make full and frank disclosure when obtaining the order, this is an independent ground for discharge. The duty of disclosure is strict: the applicant must disclose all material facts, including facts unfavourable to their case. In Hong Kong, Singapore, and the UK, non-disclosure is taken seriously and can result in the order being discharged even if the underlying case is strong.

Apply to vary the order. Even if you cannot secure discharge, you may be able to persuade the court to vary the order — for example, to increase the living expenses proviso, to release specific assets, or to narrow the scope of the order to specific accounts.

Provide security. In some cases, you can offer to provide security (such as a payment into court or a bank guarantee) as an alternative to the freezing order. If the security is sufficient to protect the applicant's position, the court may discharge the order.

Jurisdiction-Specific Notes

Hong Kong. The Court of First Instance has power to grant Mareva injunctions under the High Court Ordinance (Cap. 4). Since the Civil Justice Reforms of April 2009, section 21M of the High Court Ordinance allows the Hong Kong court to grant freezing injunctions in aid of foreign proceedings — even where there is no substantive cause of action in Hong Kong. The duty of full and frank disclosure is strictly enforced. The standard basis for costs assessment typically recovers 60–70% of actual costs, and the court may award indemnity costs for unreasonable conduct.

Singapore. The Singapore courts can grant Mareva injunctions under section 4(10) of the Civil Law Act (Cap. 43). Following the Court of Appeal's decision in Bi Xiaoqing v China Medical Technologies [2019] SGCA 50, it is now settled that the Singapore court can grant Mareva injunctions in support of foreign proceedings. However, the power is more circumscribed than in Hong Kong. Foreign freezing orders can also be registered and enforced in Singapore under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (Amendment) Act 2019.

United Kingdom. The English courts have the broadest experience with freezing orders, and the standard form order is set out in the Commercial Court Guide. CPR Part 25 governs interim remedies. The applicant must demonstrate a good arguable case, a real risk of dissipation, and that the order is just and convenient. The English courts have been innovative in extending freezing orders to persons unknown (particularly in crypto fraud cases) and in granting orders in support of foreign proceedings under section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982.

If You Are Subject to a Freezing Order

Comply with it immediately. Do not try to move assets. Do not try to work around it. Contempt of court is a quasi-criminal sanction, and the consequences are severe — including imprisonment.

Then instruct lawyers urgently. If you cannot afford lawyers, the order itself permits you to use frozen funds for legal expenses (subject to the court's approval). Apply to the court for a variation if the legal expenses proviso is insufficient.

Prepare for the return date. Gather evidence that goes to the key issues: why the applicant's case is not as strong as they have suggested, why there is no real risk of dissipation, and (critically) what the applicant failed to disclose when obtaining the order.

This article covers the general principles applicable in Hong Kong, Singapore, and the United Kingdom. The law on freezing orders is complex and evolving. If you are subject to or anticipating a freezing order, you should seek urgent legal advice specific to your jurisdiction.

Facing a freezing order and need to understand your options fast? CommonBench helps you analyse court orders, identify grounds for challenge, and prepare for your return date. [Try CommonBench →]