UL v BK

In the case of UL v BK [2013] EWHC 1735 (Fam), the court considered the proper procedure for when a party seeks a freezing order or another emergency, ex parte injunction. Freezing orders are a vital tool in preventing a wealthy party from dissipating assets, but given their severity it is vital that the court follows proper procedures.

In the initial application in UL v BK, this had not been done. The wife’s solicitors had failed to set out why it was necessary for them to come to court on an urgent basis and had disregarded all of the necessary safeguards against overzealous orders.

Mr Justice Mostyn gave a scathing judgment, confirming that applications should be made on an ex parte basis only when fully necessary, and that if possible short informal notice should always be given.

To discourage the pursuit of such applications, Mostyn J emphasised the crucial importance of the following factors:

• Significant and complex assets that are fully controlled by one party;
• Assets located overseas, where the registration of orders is more complicated;
• Challenges in reviewing dispositions of assets located in foreign jurisdictions;
• Assets that can be quickly and easily disposed of or manipulated to evade court authority;
• Actual previous attempts to dispose of or manipulate assets;
• Threats to dispose of or manipulate assets;
• Reduction or withholding of financial provisions during of after separation;
• Other evidence indicating an intention or threats to defeat a claim.

The court made it clear that ex-parte freezing orders should only be granted and maintained when the applicant can meet the factors outlined above. If these conditions are not adhered to, such orders should not be issued, and it is likely that cost orders will be made against the applicants.

If you’re considering or going through a divorce, click below for a free initial consultation with one of our expert divorce solicitors.

BOOK FREE CONSULTATION