Commercial Court provides guidance on the significance of delay in worldwide freezing order applications

The Commercial Court has given judgment in Alliance Petrochemical Investment (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Mazzagatti [2026] EWHC 2178 (Comm). The court dismissed the Claimant’s application for a worldwide freezing order and proprietary injunction against the Defendants’ assets up to the value of €160 million, in the context of a substantial fraud claim involving alleged misappropriation of funds.

The decision provides helpful guidance about the circumstances in which delay will be fatal to an application for a worldwide freezing order. In particular:

1. 1. In circumstances where the claimant has threatened to seek a worldwide freezing order from before the commencement of proceedings but fails to make its application for a considerable period, then it is appropriate for the court to consider what, if anything, has materially changed since proceedings were commenced. The judgment suggests that if the claimant’s case has not materially changed, it must point to new evidence establishing a risk of dissipation if the application is to succeed.
   2. The Court confirmed that the relevant question when assessing delay is whether there has been delay from the time at which the claimant appreciated, or should have appreciated, that there were grounds on which a freezing order could be sought and would be useful.

On the facts, transactions by companies in a group in which the first Defendant was the majority shareholder did not themselves amount to dissipation of the defendant’s personal assets. Similarly, contractually-linked remuneration disclosed in company accounts and paid in the ordinary course of business did not without more constitute evidence of an intention to dissipate assets.

The Court also considered, and dismissed, an application by the Defendants to strike out parts of the Claimant’s pleadings, and granted a third party disclosure order against a third party, H&P Advisory Limited.

Samuel Cathro acted for the Defendants, who successfully opposed the freezing injunction, instructed by Grosvenor Law Ltd and led by Jonathan Nash KC and Daniel Hubbard.

Read the full judgment