Freezing orders in divorce: Stopping a spouse from dissipating assets

In financial remedy proceedings, timing and information matter. Where there is credible evidence that a spouse is moving money, selling assets, gifting them away, or hiding assets to stop you getting a fair settlement, the court can step in quickly.

A freezing order can be a very effective way to protect assets. However, it is not granted often, it is evidence-heavy, and the court expects the paperwork and procedure to be done strictly and correctly.

What is a freezing order?

A freezing order (historically known as a Mareva injunction) is a temporary court order restraining a person from disposing of, dealing with, or diminishing the value of assets up to a stated limit. Its purpose is preservative: to keep assets in place so that a future court order concerning your finances can still be enforced.

A freezing order does not decide who owns what, and it does not give you ownership rights over the assets. It is designed to hold the position while the court works out the right financial outcome.

These orders usually include:

• a maximum amount covered by the order (a financial cap)
• clear exceptions so the person can still pay everyday living expenses and reasonable legal costs
• sometimes, permission to deal with assets in the ordinary course of business
• in many cases, an order to confirm what assets exist and where they are, usually in a sworn statement

Importantly, a freezing order is not meant to control general spending. The court sets a high bar. It needs clear evidence of a real risk that assets are being moved or disposed of in a way that would undermine a fair financial settlement, not just spending you consider unreasonable after separation.

When might you need a freezing order?

The court will only grant a freezing order where there is a genuine need to protect assets. It is most often considered where there is evidence that a spouse intends to deal with assets to defeat the other party’s claim for financial provision, or where there has already been unjustified dealing and there is a real risk it will continue.

Common warning signs include:

• Banking and cash access – large unexplained withdrawals, accounts being closed or moved, online access or statements being changed without explanation.
• Payments to others – transfers to family members, friends, or a new partner, especially if described as “loans” with no paperwork.
• Selling assets quickly – rushed sales of property, shares, or valuables, or sales at less than market value.
• Moving money into complex places – sudden activity in trading accounts, crypto accounts or wallets, offshore accounts, or new companies/trusts with no clear reason.
• Business-related extraction – unusual dividends, director’s loans, payments to connected parties, asset transfers, or sudden changes in control that do not look like ordinary trading.
• Threats plus action – statements like “you’ll get nothing” alongside sudden transactions or rushed disposal activity.

Because this is a serious order, the court will also ask whether it is reasonable and proportionate. If only a small amount is at risk compared to the overall assets, the court may expect less drastic steps to be tried first.

What is the legal basis for a freezing order in divorce?

In divorce (and civil partnership dissolution), the court has powers to make urgent orders to protect assets where necessary. Freezing order applications are often made under section 37 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (or equivalent provisions for civil partnerships), using the interim remedies process under Part 20 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010, and the court’s general power to grant injunctions.

In practical terms, the court can make an order to stop dealings with assets if it is satisfied there is a real risk of unjustified asset movement or disposal.

Broadly, an applicant must show: (1) a good arguable case and (2) a real risk that a future financial order would not be enforceable because assets are being moved, hidden, or disposed of improperly (or that refusing an order would cause real injustice).

The court will look closely at the evidence. You need proof, not suspicion.

Useful evidence can include:

• Bank statements showing unexplained transfers or withdrawals.
• Property sale documents or communications, including evidence of a sale at less than market value.
• Company documents suggesting unusual dividends, loans, or asset transfers
• Messages or emails suggesting an intention to move assets or avoid a settlement.
• A pattern of refusing to provide financial information alongside suspicious transactions.

The court may take account of dishonesty or non-disclosure, but it will still focus on the key question: is there real evidence of a risk that assets will be moved or disposed of improperly? Also, the use of offshore arrangements can be relevant in some cases, but it does not automatically mean wrongdoing as there can be legitimate reasons.

Without notice applications

Freezing orders are often requested without notice (without warning the other party), because warning them may give them time to move assets.

However, without-notice orders are exceptional. The applicant must explain clearly why notice is not being given, and must comply strictly with the rules.

The applicant also has a high duty to be open and fair with the court. That includes telling the judge about important facts that do not help your case. If you leave out something significant, the court can:

• cancel the order; and/or
• order you to pay the other side’s legal costs (sometimes on a higher-than-usual basis).

Any without-notice freezing order must be time-limited, and the court will usually list a quick follow-up hearing so the other party can attend and argue for the order to be changed or cancelled.

How wide can a freezing order be?

Often, freezing orders are limited to assets in England and Wales. In rare cases, the court may make an order intended to cover assets abroad (sometimes called a worldwide freezing order). The court will consider extra issues, including:

• whether there are enough assets in England and Wales to meet the claim
• whether there are identifiable assets abroad
• whether moving assets abroad would make a future financial order ineffective

If assets are overseas, urgent advice is usually needed on whether the order can be enforced in that country and whether you need a matching order there.

A freezing order is not a routine way to obtain “security”. It is aimed at preventing deliberate asset movement or disposal. The order must be proportionate, should not unfairly affect other people (for example, banks or business partners), and should allow day-to-day transactions that are genuinely permitted.

Where possible, assets should be identified clearly (for example, account details, shareholdings, or specific properties). The order should also normally be limited to the maximum amount you could realistically recover, rather than freezing everything without distinction.

Undertakings, service, and practical safeguards

The court will usually require the applicant to give an undertaking in damages. This is a promise that if the order turns out to have been wrong, you will compensate the other party for losses caused by the order. Sometimes the court may require security to support that promise.

Serving the order properly is crucial. Until your spouse has been served, they are not bound by it. If the order is aimed at specific assets (such as a bank account), it may also be necessary and sometimes helpful to serve the bank quickly. Anyone who knowingly helps breach a freezing order can face serious consequences.

Alternatives and complementary steps

Freezing orders can be expensive and risky. Depending on the situation, other options may provide enough protection, either instead of or alongside an injunction. These can include:

• asking the other party to give written undertakings not to dispose of assets and to give advance notice of any proposed dealings
• steps to protect property, such as applying to HM Land Registry for a notice or restriction
• using the financial remedy process to obtain better disclosure, including targeted requests and (where appropriate) third‑party disclosure
• section 37 set-aside applications where assets have already been transferred to defeat claims (sometimes involving adding a third party to the application)
• asking the court to “add back” dissipated assets in suitable cases (treating them as still part of the pot when deciding what is fair)

Costs and risks: why careful preparation matters

These applications are often urgent, evidence-heavy, and expensive upfront. They also carry real risk. If the court thinks the application was unnecessary, too broad, or not done correctly, it may order the applicant to pay the other side’s legal costs.

Courts also stress that strict compliance matters particularly for without-notice applications. The court may be more willing to make costs orders than in the standard divorce finance process and will also consider whether a narrower step would have been enough.

Practical steps if you suspect your spouse is dissipating assets

1. Act quickly and preserve evidence. Save bank statements, screenshots, emails, messages, and any documents showing threatened or actual dealings.
2. Avoid “self-help”. Do not access accounts or documents unlawfully. Misconduct can create serious legal problems and undermine your case.
3. Seek undertakings where appropriate. A clear written request for undertakings can sometimes resolve the issue quickly, and refusal may support the need for court protection.
4. Take urgent advice on the right remedy. Depending on the facts, a targeted injunction, property restriction or a section 37 application may be more effective than a broad freezing order.
5. Prepare for an evidence-led application. If an injunction is necessary, it will require careful drafting, sworn evidence, and a plan for service (including on any relevant third parties such as banks).

A freezing order can be a vital safeguard if there is a genuine risk that a spouse will move or dispose of assets to undermine a financial claim but it is a high-stakes remedy. The court expects urgency, strong evidence, strict compliance with the rules, and a carefully limited order. If you are concerned assets are being moved, early specialist advice can help you take proportionate steps and manage cost risk.

At Anthony Gold we are experienced in acting quickly where a spouse may be hiding assets, moving money, or trying to put property out of reach. If you are worried about assets being dissipated and you need urgent protection, please contact us by calling 020 7940 4060 or by email at mail@anthonygold.co.uk.