Protecting Assets During Divorce: A Guide to Freezing Orders

1. Introduction

In divorce cases that have become acrimonious, one or both ex-partners may behave unfairly toward one another out of spite. One example is where a party to the divorce transfers or sells assets during financial remedy proceedings. This means that the couple’s asset pool appears smaller than it is, which may lead to the other party receiving a lesser share of wealth from the proceedings than they should have.

To manage this potential misconduct, the law creates a protective mechanism known as a freezing order (sometimes referred to as a freezing injunction). A freezing order temporarily shields the assets from being mishandled until financial remedy proceedings conclude.

This article explains how a freezing order works and when the court may decide to grant such an order. For a broader overview of divorce and financial remedy, see our related article: A Guide to Financial Remedy Proceedings

2. What is a freezing order?

If a freezing order is made against a party (the “respondent”), they are temporarily restricted from dealing with or disposing of certain assets. The order may safeguard a breadth of assets, including: bank accounts, business interests, stocks and shares, cryptocurrency, pensions, real estate, and valuable items (for example, jewellery or artwork).

A freezing order can apply to assets held in one party’s sole name or in both parties’ joint names, and to both matrimonial and non-matrimonial assets. For more detail on the latter, see our article: Non-Matrimonial Assets in Divorce: Can inheritance, gifts and pre-marital property be protected?

A freezing order can also cover assets held by third parties, such as where assets are held in a corporate entity or shell company, or are transferred to a relative or new partner. In such cases, the third party may be prevented from transferring or dissipating the assets.

However, a freezing order is temporary; it does not change the legal ownership of assets or affect their long-term handling. Rather, it “locks down” the parties’ wealth pending the conclusion or enforcement of financial remedy proceedings (at which point the freezing order usually ends), so that the financial remedy decisions are not unfairly shaped by one party’s financial misdemeanour.

3. The legal test

While statute allows a freezing order to be granted in financial remedy proceedings (section 37 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973), such orders are seen as a draconian measure as they interfere significantly with a person’s financial autonomy. For this reason, the court has discretion regarding whether or not to make an order; in other words, no one is entitled to a freezing order.

For the court to grant an order, the application must meet a high threshold. In AT v NT [2025] EWFC 456 at [28], the court confirmed the test for a freezing order is as follows: “a real risk of dissipation which would have the effect of defeating, in whole or in part, the applicant’s claims for financial remedies”. In practice, this means:

• the court requires evidence that the respondent plans to hide, deplete, or diminish the value of the couple’s wealth; and
• these plans must have the intention of obstructing the applicant’s financial claims. In other words, the respondent would try to mishandle the assets so that the applicant “loses out” in the proceedings.

Additionally, in Crowther v Crowther [2020] EWCA Civ 762 at [47], the court clarified that it must be satisfied “that it would be just and convenient in all the circumstances to grant the freezing order”. In assessing whether it is fair to grant the freezing order, the court balances the outcomes for both the applicant and respondent; if the injustice to the respondent would outweigh the gain to the applicant, it is unlikely that the court will grant an order.

4. Emergency “without notice” applications

As freezing order applications are made where there is a risk of dissipation, there is often a need to act quickly. Applications may be made “without notice” (or “ex parte”), which means that the respondent will not be notified of the application, sometimes until the order is granted. A without notice application prevents the respondent from quickly hiding or disposing of assets in the time between finding out about the application and an order being made.

In UL v BK (Freezing Orders: Safeguards: Standard Examples) [2013] EWHC 1735 (Fam), the court confirmed at [51] that in making a without notice application, “the applicant has to show that the matter is one of exceptional urgency”. Even if the application satisfies this threshold, the respondent will likely be given “[s]hort informal notice” unless the circumstances demand no notice at all, for example “where there is literally no time to give any notice before the order is required to prevent the threatened wrongful act”.

As the respondent is not present at the interim hearing, the court applies strict standards to mitigate unfairness against them. The applicant must provide rigorous disclosure of all relevant information in the case, including any arguments which are not in their own favour. These safeguards are true for any freezing order; however, in UL v BK (Freezing Orders: Safeguards: Standard Examples) [2013] EWHC 1735 (Fam) at [51] the court emphasised that in the context of ex parte applications, “the safeguards assume critical importance”.

Any order made at the interim hearing lasts only until the return hearing (which usually takes place a few weeks later), at which both parties may attend and make their cases. The court may decide to continue, vary, or set aside the freezing order at the return hearing.

5. Alternatives to a freezing order

As mentioned, it can be difficult to prove that a freezing order is necessary, so it may be preferable to explore other options before applying for a freezing order. One route might be undertakings, whereby the other party makes a voluntary promise to the court not to dissipate the assets.

Alternatively, where there are concerns about the mishandling of the family home, it may be best to register a notice with the Land Registry to prevent the property being sold. This is sometimes known as a “home rights notice”.

Sometimes, dissipation may have occurred before a preventative measure is actioned. In such cases, the court may make an “add-back”, whereby it conceptually restores the dissipated funds to the matrimonial pot; this means that the innocent party is not negatively affected by the dissipation when the court makes orders regarding the division of assets.

For more information on how the court deals with financial misconduct during proceedings, see our article: When Does Conduct Affect a Financial Remedy Order?

6. How we can help

Where there is a risk of your ex-partner transferring or dissipating assets, it is advisable to act early to prevent this. Our specialist family barristers can help you to make a freezing order application where necessary.

We also have parallel expertise in civil law as well as corporate and commercial law, making us well-positioned to provide support on financial remedy matters relating to technical trust or business interests.

If you need legal support in financial remedy proceedings, we can provide full or specific services depending on your needs, including:

• Strategic Advice: we can advise you generally on your application, including your disclosure obligations, and whether the risk of dissipation in your case is likely to meet the evidential threshold.
• Drafting Court Documentation: we can assist in preparing the necessary documentation such as Form E (or equivalent financial disclosure statements), witness statements, and related applications.
• Court Representation: our experienced advocates can represent you at without notice, FDRs, final hearings, and other financial remedy hearings, as well as in alternative dispute resolution hearings.

We work on direct access. This means you can instruct our barristers directly without going through a solicitor. This can save time and reduce costs, while still giving you access to specialist support. Find out more about our direct access offering here.

We represent clients in London, Birmingham, Milton Keynes, Northampton, Bedford, Luton, and across the UK.

You can contact us to book an initial consultation.

Billal Malik is a barrister practising in family law, with extensive experience in children and financial remedy proceedings, particularly those with an overseas or immigration element.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a freezing order prevent expenditure?

No. The order cannot “freeze” all the respondent’s funds without distinction; the court takes a reasonable and pragmatic approach. In any case, the respondent will be able to spend money on standard living expenses and legal fees. Where business assets have been frozen, the court would not prevent the respondent from carrying out routine business activity.

Additionally, the order is usually limited to covering the maximum value of assets in which the applicant could realistically have an interest.

What happens if a freezing order is breached?

If anyone subject to a freezing order breaches the order, this constitutes contempt of court and has serious implications including financial penalties and imprisonment. Additionally, a third party who knowingly assists or permits a breach can face legal consequences.

Where the respondent spouse breaches a freezing order, the court may make adverse inferences against them in the ongoing financial remedy proceedings. The court may conclude that the respondent is unlikely to follow future orders – such as a spousal maintenance order – and might award the applicant a greater share of the lump-sum capital to account for this possibility.

Can overseas assets be frozen?

Usually, freezing orders are domestic, which means they apply to assets held within England and Wales. Domestic orders can also prevent domestic assets from being moved abroad.

Alternatively, the court may grant a worldwide freezing order, also known as a Mareva injunction, which applies to assets held in other jurisdictions. Alongside the usual legal test for a freezing order, the court must be satisfied that: there are insufficient assets within England and Wales to meet the financial claim; and, there are assets overseas which are at risk of being dissipated. Worldwide freezing orders can be complex in terms of practical enforcement, so the court will carefully consider the effectiveness of such an order before granting one.

This page is subject to the terms of our website disclaimer.