Worldwide freezing, tracing, and recovery: how to leverage the English Court’s powers when pursuing assets

The English legal system continues to offer powerful tools to prevent dissipation of assets and police worldwide freezing orders. This offers vital remedies to businesses operating in the commodities, energy and natural resources sectors that are seeking to bring claims and secure and recover assets, including those misappropriated by bad actors. What is perhaps lesser known, is the extent of the reach of these powers – which can be used to assist recoveries beyond the UK and even in support of overseas proceedings. 

Why choose England and Wales for international disputes?

Over the past five years, available court data indicates that claims totalling over £103 billion were issued in the English High Court relating to commodities, mining, and oil and gas. This figure does not account for cases for which quantum has not yet been reported, meaning the total value of these claims being litigated in the English courts is likely far higher. Nor does it include arbitration figures.

There are many reasons why England and Wales is a preferred legal forum for the resolution of such disputes. Parties are attracted in particular by the expertise of High Court judges in dealing with complex, high value, international cases and the predictability of the precedent-based common law system.

As recognised in recent analysis by The Law Society of England and Wales, English law is a preferred governing law for international commerce, with around 40% of global business and financial transactions governed by English law. The London Commercial Court remains the leading international centre for the resolution of international commercial litigation.

Safeguarding, enforcement and policing worldwide

It seems undeniable that one of the reasons for this preferred status is that as well as providing expert and timely resolution of international disputes, England and Wales also offers wide, powerful tools to safeguard assets and enforce judgments worldwide. 

2025 marked the 50th anniversary of the Mareva injunction, commonly referred to as a freezing order – an interim injunction which prevents the subject from dealing or disposing of assets, either within the jurisdiction or worldwide, until a judgment can be obtained and/or enforced. 

This powerful tool continues 50 years on, with the court having recently confirmed that the lower “good arguable case” test applies. 

To obtain a freezing order, a claimant must demonstrate (among other things) a “good arguable case” against the defendant. Regrettably, conflicting case law cast doubt over the level of this threshold, as described in our 2024 briefing.

Fortunately, clarification was recently given in Isabel dos Santos v Unitel S.A. [2024] EWCA Civ 1109 that “good arguable case” means “one which is more than barely capable of serious argument, but not necessarily one which the judge considers would have a better than 50 per cent chance of success”. 

This was considered the lower of two thresholds in contemplation, therefore making freezing orders potentially more attractive to those seeking to secure assets. This lower threshold helps to maintain England and Wales’ competitive edge as a jurisdiction when compared to others which may maintain higher threshold tests for the granting of such powerful relief (Canada and New York were recently recognised by Lord Justice Popplewell as examples of this). 

The English court also has wide powers to make orders in support of a freezing order to ensure its efficacy. These powers include disclosure orders that require details of assets to be provided and can be directed against third parties, which we successfully achieved in a recent case. Here, the Commercial Court adopted a two-stage approach favoured by courts in offshore common law jurisdictions, to the granting of a third party disclosure order. This entailed:

1. seeking a hearing (in private) to determine whether or not to grant a seal and gag order; and
2. a further hearing (on notice to the third party, with the protection of the seal and gag) to determine the disclosure application itself. 

This illustrates the approach the English court will take in balancing the principles of open justice (by ensuring that the third party had notice of the application for a disclosure order) and the need to protect the integrity of its orders (by virtue of the seal and gag order so that steps could not be taken to dissipate assets pending the disclosure order application being determined). 

Other tools available, ancillary to a freezing order, include orders for cross-examination of the respondent regarding their assets, delivery-up of travel documents preventing foreign travel, appointment of a receiver, and search orders.

It is worth noting the speed with which these orders can be obtained if there is genuine urgency. Even when the English court is not in term time, it is possible to request urgent hearings if, for example, there is a real risk an asset might be dissipated if there is delay. If a hearing is so urgent that it cannot wait until Court hours the following day, it is even possible to make an application out of hours to a Judge. 

The powers of the English court extend widely, with the power to award interim relief in respect of current or prospective foreign proceedings, in support of arbitration proceedings and against third parties to proceedings who appear to be holding assets on behalf of a defendant.

Therefore, whether or not your claim is issued in England and Wales, it is worthwhile conducting a thorough analysis as to where and how assets are held and what options are available so as to ensure you can utilise the English court’s powers.

More generally, beyond its safeguarding, enforcement and policing powers, English law’s sophistication when it comes to cases of fraud makes it a highly favourable jurisdiction for pursuing bad actors. There is a wealth of claims that can be brought under the heading of fraud with powerful remedies – including to pursue third parties who have dishonestly assisted a perpetrator or knowingly received a claimant’s assets from them. 

This helps limit the effectiveness of fraudulent schemes. 

Coupled with increasing enforcement options, including the coming into force of the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention and current consideration of the implementation of the Singapore Convention on Mediation, England and Wales has many advantages for the resolution of disputes and subsequent enforcement and policing worldwide. 

Fraser Mitchell is a partner in the Dispute Resolution Team of Lewis Silkin who acts in a range of complex cross-border disputes for a variety of clients. Benjamin Smith is Managing Associate at Lewis Silkin’s London office, Nicola Thompson is Managing Knowledge Lawyer for the Dispute Resolution team at Lewis Silkin.

Fraser recently spoke with Africa Legal about significant opportunities for Africa as the global mining landscape evolves (read here). 

He and Benjamin will be attending GC Forum Extractives on 11 February 2026 in Cape Town, and welcome conversations on dispute strategy, risk management, and enforcement planning. Contact them on LinkedIn here: Fraser Mitchell, Ben Smith