Should freezing orders prohibit banks enhancing the value of protected assets? David O’Mahony reports
Freezing orders are a feature of both criminal and civil litigation. Their obvious purpose is to preserve assets so that there is something against which a final order can be enforced. The sanctions for breach of the order are provided by the law on contempt of court. But in common form, freezing orders prohibit “dealing” with assets.
DEALING WITH ASSETS
Although some comments in the Court of Appeal in Z Ltd v A-Z and AA-LL [1982] QB 558, [1982] 1 All ER 556 led to a very cautious attitude by those giving advice on what conduct constituted a breach of the no dealing aspect of freezing orders, the Court of Appeal in Law Society v Shanks [1988] 1 FLR 504 and Bank Mellat v Kazmi [1989] QB 541, [1989] 1 All ER 925 decided that it would not be a breach to hand assets to a person to whom a freezing order was directed, provided
-maryam-naaz-theo-corbett-and-rachel-carter-with-(front-from-left)-arya-vindlacheruvu-and-jessica-ashcroft.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=47f89300_1)
