In short: a freezing order is only as effective as the mechanism behind it. Gilbert v Broadoak Private Finance [2026] EWCA Civ 1172 shows that even a strong case on the merits can fail if the order cannot be served abroad.
A very recent freezing-order ruling handed down in London on 22 September shows the remedy at its most frustrating. The freezing order failed because it could not be served on respondents in Spain.
For litigants trying to stop assets vanishing, the case exposes the same hard truth about cross-border litigation: a freezing order is powerful only if it can reach the respondent, via an existing CPR PD 6B Gateway. In Gilbert, the court was persuaded that the case for freezing assets had been made, only to be foiled by procedural rules that prevented the order from reaching its targets in Spain.
In Gilbert, handed down on 22 September 2026, the Court of Appeal (Foxton LJ, with whom Miles LJ and Jeremy Baker LJ agreed), upheld the discharge of a worldwide freezing order against two respondents in Spain, despite the lower court finding that the substantive requirements for the order had been satisfied. The problem was procedural: the claimants had no recognised CPR PD6B Gateway route; for serving out their application on respondents in Spain.
Gilbert concerned the efforts of Benjamin Gilbert and his company, BG Projects, to enforce an English judgment worth around £5.5 million, against property finance company Broadoak Private Finance, for outstanding loans. Information obtained from Broadoak’s bank suggested that its majority shareholder, Mr Bleakley, had removed around £5 million from the company. Further disclosure revealed that €2.55 million had been paid into a Spanish bank account belonging to Mr Bleakley’s wife, while other money may have benefited King Street Capital, a Spanish company owned by Mr Bleakley and controlled by him and his wife.
The claimants obtained a worldwide freezing order against both, as NCAD’s (non-cause of action defendants), on the basis that assets apparently belonging to them might ultimately be available to satisfy the judgment against Broadoak. The lower court found there was “good reason to suppose” that payments had been made for no proper purpose and that there was a risk that assets could be dissipated: see [13].
The worldwide freezing order was discharged solely for a procedural Gateway reason. The respondents were in Spain, and CPR PD 6B does not give claimants a route to serve this particular application abroad. The Court of Appeal treated that procedural gap as fatal to the application. Foxton LJ rejected the argument that the High Court’s general injunction power, under s.37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, could fill it, holding that the power did not create a standalone right to bring proceedings.
That procedural disparity produced an inelegant anomaly. The rules allow service abroad for a freezing order supporting the enforcement of a foreign judgment, but not for the corresponding application where the judgment was obtained in England. Foxton LJ called the result a “curiosity” and said it “might not be seen as entirely attractive” at [125], but held that any correction was for the Civil Procedure Rule Committee.
His Lordship noted at [123], however, that the respondents’ victory “may yet prove to be pyrrhic”. The claimants (appellants in these proceedings) have brought separate Insolvency Act and trust claims which, unlike the free-standing application, could provide a basis for serving proceedings abroad and seeking a freezing order.
Andrew Maguire is regularly instructed to obtain and resist cross-border freezing injunctions and proprietary asset preservation orders, primarily in banking and financial services and investment asset misappropriation and tracing claims. Andrew practises from Littleton Chambers in London and the Law Library in Dublin and at the DIFC and ADGM in the UAE.
Recently reported cases include Mooij v Persons Unknown and others [2024] 1 WLR 3800 and Jones v Persons Unknown [2022] EWHC 2543 (Comm); [2025] 1 WLR 3448 and Okuashvili v Ivanishvili [2025] EWHC 829 (Ch); [2025] I.L.Pr 28.
https://www.legal500.com/firms/9469-littleton-chambers/r-england/barristers/1164459-andrew-maguire
