Cross-border disputes are common, with freezing orders being the most common. Their impact abroad depends on the willingness of a foreign court to accept or enforce them. Absence of a strategy entails letting assets evaporate, which is why pace is paramount. A home-court order is not self-executing abroad, an equivalent order from a foreign court would still be needed.
What Are Injunctions?
As defined in the Court, an injunction order is an instruction to either do something or stop doing something. For example, in this case, an injunction may order the freezing of assets or even the surrendering of specific documents. It is an equitable relief, which the court has the prerogative to grant, and failure to comply constitutes contempt of court. However, orders do not “travel” merely because people or assets do.
It is often the case that to make them effective abroad, you must obtain recognition, registration, or a local equivalent order. In cross-border disputes, two common types are freezing (to stop dissipation of assets) and proprietary injunctions (to protect assets claimed as yours).
Domestic Power Vs. Overseas Effect
- Within the territory, an order of a Court can be enforced, and there is no limitation with respect to third parties.
- Beyond the territory, orders of a court from a different jurisdiction are not recognised by foreign courts. They must follow their local laws and policies. An order made within the territory and deemed valid can have no effect outside the territory unless a foreign court endorses it.
- The reason is that third parties such as banks and custodians, as well as service providers based in other countries, will not act in the absence of an order from the local market.
Main Pathways To Effectiveness Abroad
- Mirror orders: Foreign courts will be asked to give the same order as the one given by the court in the country of origin. Such a foreign court has the right to change the order based on its discretion, jurisdiction, and may alter the additional terms.
- Worldwide freezing orders (WFOs): Aimed at preventing the dissipation of assets, irrespective of location, to which they relate, on the other hand, only apply in the territory of the jurisdictional courts that issue or purport to issue WFOs. In any case, you will still be at the forefront of local relief in major jurisdictions.
- Disclosure support: Execution of freezing orders should be combined with disclosures (from the respondent or third parties) that are targeted to identify and monitor assets.
Recognition Hurdles And Limits
Be prepared to answer foreign courts regarding:
- Jurisdiction and due process: Adequate basis, proper notice, and, if notice is not given, full and frank disclosure followed by a timely return hearing.
- Specificity and proportionality: Reasonable and clear terms with justifiable exclusions (for survival, legal, and commercial activities).
- Public policy and third‑party effects: No effects of a punitive nature, no unreasonable burdens to financial institutions, and local court oversight.
- Duration and review: No punitive effect, but time-restricted orders with a review process usually travel better.
Evidence and Procedure Checklist
- Don’t waste time. If it’s ex parte, disclose all information, including the weak points.
- Identify the assets and gather supporting documentation: affidavits, fund transfers, company incorporation documents, land title registries, or on-chain breadcrumbs.
- Identify the jurisdictions and assets. Select the respondents and principal intermediaries. Outline the nexus.
- Assemble and finalise any required translations, certifications, and other legalisations as early as possible.
- Make the arrangements for service, which include, where possible, electronic service, and comply with the applicable rules.
- Supply any relevant damage undertakings that are needed and security that is necessary.
- Draft the scope of the order and the exclusions of the order. Avoid vague and overbroad terms.
- Liaise with local counsel so electronic and paper filings follow the logical sequence to avoid alerting the respondents.
- Get all local counsel to keep disclosure requests as narrow as possible to comply with local privacy and banking laws.
Trend Insight
Cross‑border payments move fast. In the UK, CHAPS settles approximately £350bn of high-value sterling payments during each business day, so book the venue in advance, arrange submissions, and collaborate to provide adequate relief to the case as a team of professionals.
Strategy And Forum Selection
Select the court in which the parties, the assets, or the actions have a genuine connection. This increases the credibility and chances of success in other jurisdictions.
- Connect the forum to the assets. If there is a bank in the UK that holds the funds, the court in the UK is often the most practical one to file in.
- Chasing friendliness is pointless. Such weak connections will make it more difficult to get mirror orders.
- In some cases, the order of events should be smart. You can choose to benchmark within the country, and afterwards move abroad, or start directly from where the assets are.
- Be realistic. Measure the scale and time to be expended against the risk and asset base.
- The possibility of insolvency or arbitral action should be taken into consideration. Justify the bases within which the regimes fall.
Conclusion
Cross-border enforcement isn’t about a single sweeping order, it requires a coordinated strategy. The moment a risk appears, move fast: map assets, identify key jurisdictions, work with local counsel, and file proportionate orders supported by solid evidence. With speed, clarity, and careful coordination, your injunction has a strong chance of being recognised and enforced abroad.
