Auteurs

Nick Storrs

Associé

Read More

Georgina Jones

Collaborateur senior

Read More
Auteurs

Nick Storrs

Associé

Read More

Georgina Jones

Collaborateur senior

Read More

21 juillet 2021

Disputes Quick Read – 46 de 87 Publications

Disputes Quick Read: Freezing injunctions – maximum custodial sentence imposed for breach

  • Quick read

A freezing order is an order restricting the disposal of assets by a party in proceedings. Typically, a freezing injunction preserves the defendant's assets until judgment can be obtained or satisfied.

Breaching an order is serious and the sanctions can be severe – as illustrated by a recent case, XL Insurance Company SE v IPORS Underwriting Ltd, Paul Alan Corcoran & Others [2021] EWHC 1407 (Comm).

The penal notice

A freezing order must have a penal notice prominently displayed on the front. This is a warning that, if the person against whom the order is made disobeys the order, they may be held in contempt of court and punished by a fine, imprisonment, confiscation of assets or other punishment under the law.

So, if you receive a freezing order, you should be under no illusion about the potential seriousness of a breach: a prison sentence is a real possibility. This is what happened in XL Insurance Company. Here, the judge handed down an immediate two-year custodial sentence for breaches of an order – the maximum sentence available. 

The contempt proceedings

In XL Insurance Company, the claimant made an application for contempt based on the defendant's disposal of assets in breach of the order's restrictions and their failure to comply with various disclosure obligations regarding their assets.

The judge summarised the key elements of contempt which need to be established as set out in a recent Court of Appeal decision, Varma v Atkinson & Another [2020] EWCA Civ 1602:

  • It is necessary to prove knowledge of the order and that the defendant knew what they were doing or was failing to do. 
  • However, it is not necessary to show the defendant knew those actions were breaching the order in question.

In XL Insurance Company, both of these tests were satisfied. 

To commit a person for breach of an injunction, a deliberate or wilful breach of the order must be established beyond reasonable doubt – the criminal standard of proof. The judge found that the defendant’s multiple and persistent breaches were serious and deliberate and met the criminal standard. Because of this, a committal order was made, and the defendant was sentenced to the maximum custodial term.

Key takeaway

XL Insurance Company confirms the serious consequences of breaching freezing injunctions. The judge looked at the disclosure breaches and asset dissipation breaches separately and gave guidance on sentencing in each case. In this case, the breaches were numerous and serious, and the decision is a reminder that the court won’t shy away from imposing custodial sentences where appropriate.

Find out more

To discuss the issues raised in this article in more detail, please reach out to a member of our Disputes & Investigations team.

Dans cette série

Résolution des litiges

New SFO Director announces bold plans to tackle fraud

21 March 2024

par plusieurs auteurs

Résolution des litiges

What are the litigation trends for 2024?

1 February 2024

par Katie Chandler, Emma Allen

Résolution des litiges

ClientEarth v FCA: Challenging Regulator Decisions

12 February 2024

par Tim Strong, Nicole Baldev

Résolution des litiges

The use of AI in Trial Witness Statements post-PD 57AC

23 October 2023

par plusieurs auteurs

Résolution des litiges

Failure to prevent fraud – a new offence?

14 August 2023

par plusieurs auteurs

Résolution des litiges

Supreme Court rules that APP fraud victims cannot rely on Quincecare Duty

4 August 2023

par plusieurs auteurs

Résolution des litiges

Disputes Quick Read: ClientEarth refused permission to pursue directors of Shell

1 June 2023

par plusieurs auteurs

Résolution des litiges

CJC costs review – what will change?

1 June 2023

par James Bryden, Helen Robinson

Résolution des litiges

Embargoed judgments – dos and don'ts

16 May 2023

par Stephanie High

Cryptoactifs, blockchain et technologie des registres distribués (DLT) et projets Web 3.0

Disputes Quick Read: New obligations on cryptobusinesses to report under the UK sanctions regime

9 August 2022

par Nick Maday

Résolution des litiges

Disputes Quick Read: New gateway for serving Norwich Pharmacal Orders and Bankers Trust orders out of the jurisdiction

Welcome news for those pursuing fraud claims in the English Courts

28 July 2022

par Emma Allen, Samantha Brendish

Résolution des litiges

Disputes Quick Read: Care required when drafting SPA claim notices

23 September 2020

par plusieurs auteurs

Coronavirus

Disputes Quick Read: COVID-19 and supply chain disruption – key issues

9 April 2020

par plusieurs auteurs

Résolution des litiges

Disputes Quick Read: Tomlin Orders – ensuring the confidentiality of settlement terms

27 April 2020

par plusieurs auteurs

Coronavirus

Disputes Quick Read: Embracing remote hearings – the experience to date

26 March 2020

par plusieurs auteurs

Résolution des litiges

Disputes quick read: pilot error?

13 February 2020

par Andrew Howell

Résolution des litiges

Disputes Quick Read: Dealing in crypto? Be careful what you call it

7 April 2022

par plusieurs auteurs

Call To Action Arrow Image

Latest insights in your inbox

Subscribe to newsletters on topics relevant to you.

Subscribe
Subscribe

Related Insights

Résolution des litiges

Disputes Quick Read: Dealing in crypto? Be careful what you call it

7 avril 2022
Briefing

par plusieurs auteurs

Cliquer ici pour en savoir plus
Résolution des litiges

The latest on sanctions relating to Ukraine

25 février 2022

par plusieurs auteurs

Cliquer ici pour en savoir plus
Résolution des litiges

Cryptoasset fraud: Squid coin rug-pull and tracing cryptoassets

19 novembre 2021
Briefing

par plusieurs auteurs

Cliquer ici pour en savoir plus