Lost in Translation – Enforcing English Worldwide Freezing Orders in Switzerland

Article by Roxane Reiser, 1^st December 2025

To read or download this article  as a PDF, please click here.

It is a familiar theme. You act for the Good Guys who seek to recover sums owed to them in proceedings in England. The Bad Guys are shifting money out of the jurisdiction to frustrate the Good Guys’ claim. Good Guys become aware of assets in Switzerland held for the Bad Guys. In haste, you apply for an ex-parte Worldwide Freezing Order (“WFO”). You get it. Now what? Can you enforce the WFO in Switzerland? Do you need a mirror order? And why is your Swiss lawyer looking so pessimistic?

These questions arise in a variety of contexts – from commercial litigation to international successions and cross-border divorce disputes. Whatever the context the issue is the same: assets in Switzerland need to be preserved in order to satisfy a claim adjudicated upon in England.

Before the end of the Brexit transition period (i.e. 31 December 2020 at midnight), the enforcement of English worldwide freezing orders in civil and commercial matters in Switzerland was facilitated by the 2007 Lugano Convention (“LC”). Those days are over. Enforcement of English WFOs must now be sought under the Swiss Private International Law Act (“SPILA”) – a more arduous route to cross-border enforcement in Switzerland.  This article provides a brief roadmap to these issues, so that the Good Guys may prevail on Swiss soil too.

Pre-Brexit enforcement of English WFOs in civil and commercial matters in Switzerland

The LC provided for a form of “fast-track” recognition and enforcement of decisions in civil and commercial matters from Contracting States. The Swiss Supreme Court confirmed on several occasions that English WFO could in principle be recognised and enforced under the LC. Notwithstanding this, Swiss first instance courts struggled to reconcile the “in personam” nature of a WFO with the “in rem” character of the equivalent remedy under Swiss law (“séquestre” or attachment order under art. 271 ff of the Swiss Debt Recovery and Bankruptcy Act).^[1]

An attachment order under Swiss law is a blunt instrument. It can only take effect against specific assets. The concern, therefore, is that enforcement of a WFO in Switzerland would give the applicant more than he had obtained in England. A further difficulty is that once a Swiss attachment order is made the asset holder is prohibited from dealing with the assets at all. As a result, provisions for disbursements for living costs etc, commonly included in WFO, cannot be given effect to. Either the assets are seized or they are not.

In partial answer to these conundrums, the Swiss Supreme Court held that it was possible to declare a WFO enforceable without simultaneously ordering enforcement measures (so-called “bare enforceability”)^[2] – the creditor being free to seek domestic (i.e. in rem) preservation measures in separate proceedings. The Swiss Supreme Court made it clear that the provision in the WFO for deductions for costs of living, legal fees etc. did not preclude a declaration of enforceability under the LC – although the implementation of such orders remains difficult in practice.

A further obstacle to enforcement of WFOs under the LC was the protection of the right to be heard. Enforcement of an English WFO may be refused – whether under the LC or the SPILA rules discussed below – if the respondent had no opportunity to be heard. This is a problem for orders made ex-parte which provide for a short time frame for the respondent to apply to vary or discharge the ex-parte order. A period of five days for the respondent to vary or discharge an ex-parte WFO was considered too short by the Swiss Supreme Court. ^[3] By contrast, the Swiss Supreme Court held that an ex-parte order giving the respondents an open ended right to apply to vary or discharge the order sufficiently safeguarded their rights to be heard under the Lugano Convention and applicable EU case law.^[4]

Notwithstanding these difficulties, the practice of Swiss courts pre-Brexit, by and large, was to allow recognition and enforcement of English WFOs falling within the scope of the LC (although enforcement would be by means of a domestic attachment order, with the restrictions this carried).

Enforcement of English WFOs under the rules of Swiss Private International Law

Enforcement of English WFOs is now exclusively governed by the SPILA. SPILA rules already applied to decisions falling outside the scope of the LC such as decisions concerning property rights arising out of a matrimonial relationship, wills and succession. Those rules now apply across the board^[5] to any English WFO.

Historically, enforcing English WFOs – particularly interim WFOs – under SPILA has not been easy. Art. 25 SPILA expressly states that only “definitive”, i.e. final, decisions are capable of recognition in Switzerland. This has been widely – although not unanimously –  interpreted as precluding the recognition of foreign interim measures. In this author’s view, that interpretation is too narrow. In particular it is at odds with the routine recognition and enforcement of foreign interim measures in other contexts.^[6] Further, in some cantons attitudes towards recognition of English interim measures under SPILA may be shifting. This is in part because recognition of interim measures under the Lugano Convention is no longer available. But it is also a reflection of Swiss courts’ increasingly willingness to order interim measures aimed at preserving assets abroad in order to protect claims in domestic proceedings.^[7] In other words, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Difficulties remain, however. Recent litigation before the Zürich High Court (“Obergericht”) is illustrative of the way in which English WFOs are now treated under SPILA. In a decision dated 14 October 2024, the Zürich High Court declined to recognise and enforce an English WFO obtained by the appellant (A) in May 2024 against the respondent (R), precluding R from disposing of any of his assets worldwide up to a value of c. £10m. A had been granted permission by the English court to enforce the freezing order in Switzerland in August 2024. In September 2024 A applied to the Zürich district court to enforce the WFOs. By that point A had not yet obtained a substantive judgment on the main claim in England (which related to the sale of a yacht and R defaulting on the purchase price). A sought enforcement of the WFOs against a number of third parties, including two Swiss banks.

The Zürich High Court refused enforcement against the banks. In the court’s view:

• The WFO only operated against R. It imposed no prohibition on the banks who were not parties to the proceedings. There was therefore no judgment against them. The penal notice contained in the WFO did not impose an obligation on the banks – it merely warned them of the consequences of breach (i.e. contempt).
• It was in any event not possible for the Zürich court to give effect to the WFO vis à vis the banks in the proceedings at hand because of the absence of any power under the Swiss Civil Procedure Code to impose prohibitions on dispositions by third parties without simultaneously enforcing the debt.
• Even if such a power existed, enforcement of the WFOs against the banks should be refused because it would infringe on their right to be heard. In the instant case, per the Zürich court, there was no record of the banks being given the opportunity to be heard before the WFO was granted, nor was there any evidence of the banks being given the opportunity to challenge the WFO after it was issued.
• Finally, enforcement of the WFO was not permissible due to lack of certainty. The court opined that it was not possible for the banks to know at any given point whether dealing with funds held in bank accounts would prejudice the preservation of the c. 10m frozen under the terms of the WFO because the banks did not know what other assets R had.

This makes for rather depressing reading. However, the matter returned to Zürich High Court later that year. A, now armed with a summary judgment from the English High Court, was able to enforce said judgment by way of a domestic attachment order pursuant to Art. 271(1)(6) not only against the banks but also against a third party in Switzerland, “C”, to whom R had made large transfers in the immediate aftermath of the WFO. The Zürich district court found that C had been a straw man for R and was holding the assets transferred on his behalf. It mattered not that C was not a party to the English proceedings.

So what to do?

It is a saving grace that most established Swiss banks will abide by a WFO de facto once notified of its existence. As the recent case of the Zürich High Court demonstrates however, de facto abidance is not a given.

If enforcement of a WFO in Switzerland through Swiss courts is necessary, permission to enforce the WFO abroad must first be sought from the English court. The court has a discretion to grant permission in line with the Dadourian guidelines (cf. Dadourian Group International Inc v Simms [2006] 1 W.L.R. 2499 para. 25. Of particular relevance is guideline 4 which provides that permission should not normally be given in terms that would enable the applicant to obtain relief in the foreign proceedings which is superior to the relief given by the WFO. Elaborating on this guideline, the Court of Appeal in Dadourian stated at para. 40:

“If the only form of relief available in the foreign court is one which is more extensive than the WFO, the court may be less willing to grant its permission to take proceedings abroad. In an appropriate case, however, it may do so. The applicant should bear in mind that it may be necessary to provide evidence of the range of orders available under foreign law in order that the court can make a properly informed choice as to whether to grant permission to seek a superior form of relief abroad.” (emphasis added)

Incidentally Dadourian concerned the enforcement of a WFO in Switzerland. The Court of Appeal was satisfied that permission to enforce the WFO in Switzerland had been properly granted. However, it noted that the permission order enabled the enforcing party to obtain a charge over assets in Switzerland and that there was no evidence which would have justified this on the facts of the case (para. 56). The Court of Appeal did not however consider it necessary to discharge that part of the permission order because the enforcing party was now no longer seeking relief in Switzerland. Dadourian is a good example of the need to consider carefully the evidence to be submitted before the court in support of an application for permission (as to which see guideline 5).

If and when permission is obtained, it is essential for Swiss counsel tasked with enforcement to be fully briefed on the nature of the WFO, the involvement of (and service on) third parties, any right to discharge or set aside the order etc. so that nothing gets lost in translation.

Another weapon in the Good Guys’ armoury is to obtain a domestic interim attachment order in aid of the English proceedings. Pursuant to Art. 10 SPILA Swiss courts have jurisdiction to order interim measures in aid of foreign proceedings where such measures are to be enforced in Switzerland, provided such measures are urgent and necessary.

A domestic attachment order once judgment in the main action has been obtained remains the most straightforward route to preserve assets in Switzerland to meet an English judgment. The difficulty, of course, is that such a measure may be of little assistance without prior interim protection.

[1] Zürich Court of First Instance (Bezirksgericht Zürich) of 22 December 2010 (EU100827 and EU102419); upheld on appeal by the Zürich Court of Appeal (Obergericht des Kantons Zurich) of 9 May 2011; .
[2] Swiss Federal Supreme Court 4A_366/2011 31 October 2011.
[3] Swiss Federal Supreme Court 4P.331/2005 of 1 March 2006.
[4] Swiss Federal Supreme Court ATF 129 III 626 (Uzan v Motorola Credit Corporation).
[5] Subject to EU transitional provisions.
[6] Eg. orders for interim maintenance under the 1973 Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions Relating to Maintenance Obligations to which Switzerland and the UK are parties. Switzerland is due to become a signatory to the 2007 Hague Convention imminently.
[7] In the divorce context, see eg. Swiss Supreme Court decision in Rybolovlev v Rybolovleva of 26 April 2012 (5A_259/2010).

For more information:

• Our Trusts, probate and estates: contentious expertise.
• Our Trusts, probate and estates: non-contentious expertise

The views expressed in this material are those of the individual author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Wilberforce Chambers or its members. This material is provided free of charge by Wilberforce Chambers for general information only and is not intended to provide legal advice. No responsibility for any consequences of relying on this as legal advice is assumed by the author or the publisher; if you are not a solicitor, you are strongly advised to obtain specific advice from a lawyer. The contents of this material must not be reproduced without the consent of the author.