In a nutshell: From 6 April 2025, a new Part 25 of the Civil Procedure Rules for England and Wales is in force, streamlining the procedure for obtaining certain interim remedies, including the two most effective means of preserving or seizing an opponent's property before trial.

What is a freezing injunction?

A freezing injunction is a short-term, immediate order, usually granted before trial,  that prevents a party from dealing with their own assets. It is granted to ensure that a respondent does not dissipate assets before a final judgment can be enforced.

A close sibling of the freezing injunction is the proprietary injunction, which freezes assets in the possession of the respondent over which the applicant already asserts ownership or another proprietary interest.

What is a search order?

An even more extreme interim remedy is the search order. It allows the applicant to access premises owned by the respondent to search for and seize property and make copies of documents. Like the freezing order, it can be (and almost always is) sought without notice to the respondent. It aims to prevent a defendant from destroying evidence that might be used against them.

A search order may be allied to an imaging order, which permits the applicant to copy data stored on electronic devices or in the cloud.

Overhaul of Part 25 of the Civil Procedure Rules

These interim remedies, and others, are set out in Part 25 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which on 6 April 2025 was revamped. Prior to the changes, the rules for the different remedies were somewhat conflated, but the new rules are streamlined into six sections: interim remedies in general, interim injunctions, freezing injunctions, search and imaging orders, interim payment orders, and security for costs.

The rules themselves have been modernised. Gone are two supplementing practice directions, dated provisions on telephone hearings and EU law, and old court forms. In their place are more current references to remote hearings and IT, an explicit reference to the Court’s power to grant imaging orders (something that had not until now been expressly codified) and three new model orders.

The model orders simplify the procedure for obtaining freezing injunctions and search orders. Each order includes footnotes that reflect the latest case law in the relevant area. A new front page to each of the model orders reminds applicants of their duty of full and frank disclosure.

If you have a strong and legitimate legal claim and you can show that there is a real risk the defendant may dissipate identified assets to avoid paying any eventual judgment against them, deploying a freezing order can be a crucial first step to ensuring that your claim is ultimately made good.

You can apply for a search order where you have a strong prima facie case and can show that you will suffer serious damage unless a search order is granted. You need to show a real possibility that the defendants will otherwise destroy incriminating documents or material in their possession. It is also possible to apply for a search order against an individual or a company that is not a party to the proceedings.

Both a freezing injunction and a search order may be applied for before proceedings have been commenced. However, if you do apply for either a freezing injunction or a search order before a claim has been issued, you must either issue a claim immediately or undertake to do so as soon as possible.

Both of these remedies are normally applied for "without notice" to the other party. They are draconian remedies and will not be granted lightly, but under the appropriate circumstances, they can be invaluable tools.

The new Part 25 rules now reflect modern reality and the latest case law and reward parties that can act quickly and prepare meticulously. With these as with all interim orders, time is of the essence.

If you need any help or advice on obtaining an interim remedy from an English court, are subject to a freezing or search order, or would like to discuss any aspect of this article in more detail, please contact Dr. Nina von Borries or Iain Preston in our English disputes team.