Freezing injunctions against third parties—the Chabra jurisdiction

Published by a ��˾��ҹ�� Dispute Resolution expert

Practice notes

Freezing injunctions against third parties—the Chabra jurisdiction

Published by a ��˾��ҹ�� Dispute Resolution expert

Practice notes

This Practice Note provides guidance on the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the CPR. Depending on the court in which your matter is proceeding, you may also need to be mindful of additional provisions—see further below.

What is the ‘Chabra jurisdiction’?

This Practice Note discusses freezing injunctions against third parties, as opposed to defendants in proceedings, pursuant to the Chabra jurisdiction.

The name is derived from Mummery J’s decision in TSB International v Chabra. In that case, a freezing order was granted against a third-party company where there was a good arguable case that the assets apparently vested in the name of the company were in fact beneficially the property of Mr Chabra, and therefore those assets, or at least some of them, might be available to satisfy the claimant's claims against Mr Chabra should the claimant be successful at trial. As a result, the courts’ jurisdiction to grant a freezing injunction against a party whom the claimant asserts no cause of action (a non-cause of action defendant or NCAD) was

Jurisdiction(s):

United Kingdom

Key definition:

Freezing injunction definition

What does Freezing injunction mean?

A freezing injunction is an interim order by the court restraining a party from removing assets in a jurisdiction or restraining a party from dealing with any located within or outside the jurisdiction.

��˾��ҹ��