Rethinking the scope of freezing injunctions

Abstract

The English courts routinely preface their decisions with prominent remarks about the draconian nature of freezing injunctions, frequently described as one of the nuclear weapons in the courts’ armoury. However, the increasing number of cases involving wrongfully granted injunctions suggests that the courts may not be doing enough to protect defendants. The author advocates a modest shift of emphasis away from the traditional, one-dimensional view that freezing injunctions are solely designed as a weapon against unscrupulous defendants. Instead, the author argues that freezing injunctions should be seen as a reflection of the principle of equipage equality. The author argues that some of the key preconditions for granting freezing injunctions are overly claimant-friendly and need to be reformulated in order to ensure a level-playing field in litigation. Although there are a number of important safeguards for defendants and the courts are generally sensitive to the competing interests of the parties, it will be demonstrated that there is still some room for improvement.

More information

Identifiers

ORCID for Filip Saranovic: orcid.org/0000-0002-7651-3836

Catalogue record

Export record