Freezing orders (Chabra): High Court discharges WFO for lack of jurisdiction despite strong underlying case (England & Wales)

Key Takeaways

• Chabra relief (i.e. the ability of the court to order a freezing order against a third party) against foreign respondents remains exceptionally difficult to obtain. Service out of the jurisdiction can be a real battleground in Chabra cases involving overseas parties. Even where the substantive merits are compelling, jurisdictional gateways are strictly policed, and the Court will not strain to find one. Parties should undertake a rigorous gateway analysis before proceeding with such an application.
• Gateway (3) (necessary and proper party) cannot anchor onto a concluded claim. A final judgment brings the proceedings to an end such that the concluded proceedings cannot be cited as “anchor proceedings” for the purposes of this gateway. Nor can the claimant rely on a future or hypothetical claim, or the existence of another Chabra respondent sued within the jurisdiction, to establish a real issue to be tried justifying interim relief. Seek Chabra relief against the relevant party before other relevant proceedings conclude, or consider whether further substantive proceedings should be brought for such relief to be obtainable (see, for example, the Court’s decision in Commercial Bank of Dubai v Al Sari and Ors [2024] EWHC 3304 (Comm)).
• Alternative gateways offer no easy workaround. The judgment will likely be cited to resist creative gateway arguments: Chabra relief is not enforcement (gateway 10); the “subject matter” must be property in England, not outside the jurisdiction (gateway 11); and section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (empowering the Court to grant injunctions or appoint receivers) does not create a cause of action (gateway 20).

Facts of the Case

The claimants (“Cs”) were investors in an English property finance company (“D”). D was directed by a third party (“3P”); C1 held a minority share but said he had been excluded from management since 2019.

Between 2017 and 2019, Cs loaned funds to D. D defaulted, and after a largely uncontested process Cs obtained a judgment against D for approximately £4.2m. Enforcement recovered around £600,000, leaving a substantial shortfall. Cs’ investigations, including bank disclosure orders, revealed that D had received around £7m which was unaccounted for and that large sums were transferred from D to 3P, his estranged wife, and to a Spanish company she administered (the wife and her company being “Rs”).

Cs alleged that Rs received substantial payments from D with no legitimate purpose, including money used to purchase high-value cars and a Dubai villa. Cs sought a worldwide freezing order (WFO) against Rs under the Chabra jurisdiction, arguing those assets would ultimately be available to satisfy the judgment against D.

The WFO was granted without notice on 4 August 2025. It was served in Spain with permission for service out. On the return date, Rs applied to discharge the order for alleged non disclosure and lack of personal jurisdiction.

The Decision

1. The Court discharged the WFO for lack of personal jurisdiction: The Court held that none of the service out gateways in CPR PD 6B para 3.1 applied, meaning the court had no jurisdiction to continue the Chabra freezing order against Rs in Spain. Permission to serve out was revoked, service was set aside, and the WFO was discharged. This outcome was not due to any weaknesses in the underlying evidence: the Court expressly found a strong substantive case and a real risk of dissipation.
2. Gateway (3) (necessary or proper party) did not apply: Gateway (3) requires a live issue between the claimant and an anchor defendant within the jurisdiction. Here, the anchor defendant D had already had final judgment entered against it and no issue remained to be tried. The court emphasised that: (i) a concluded claim cannot support service out against third parties; and (ii) future or hypothetical issues (e.g. in a new unserved claim) cannot satisfy the anchor gateway (3).
3. Cs’ alternative gateways (10), (11), (20) all failed: The court rejected all alternative arguments:
   • Gateway (10) (enforcement): A Chabra freezing application is not a “claim to enforce a judgment”. It is ancillary relief.
   • Gateway (11) (property within the jurisdiction): The WFO related to assets held abroad, not English property. 
   • Gateway (20) (enactment): Section 37 Senior Courts Act 1981 is a remedial provision which does not “allow proceedings to be brought” and therefore cannot satisfy the enactment gateway.
4. Although the claimants breached their duty of fair presentation, this alone would not have led to discharge: The court found significant non disclosure concerning the gateway issues, but held that; (i) the breaches were not deliberate; (ii) some counter-arguments were flagged, albeit inadequately; and (iii) the underlying merits were strong.
5. The substantive Chabra conditions were satisfied: Even though the order was discharged, the judge made clear: (i) There was good reason to suppose Rs held assets traceable to D; (ii) there was a well-supported inference that 3P’s wife knew she was not entitled to the funds; and (iii) there was a real risk of dissipation, demonstrated by unexplained spending and inadequate asset disclosure. If jurisdiction had existed, the WFO would have been continued.