Freezing order

The case concerned a challenge to a freezing order on the grounds that the claimant had not completed full disclosure, due to without-prejudice communications not being disclosed. The court held that the basic rule was that the fact and content of without prejudice communications were not to be disclosed.

However, the obligation of a party seeking ex parte relief to ensure that the court was not misled meant that he could not regard the basic rule as determinative on the question of disclosure. Considerable care had to be taken in holding that a claimant was bound to disclose without prejudice material.

A prime reason for that was to prevent admissions made in such discussions from being used against those who had made them. Another reason for a relatively robust approach against holding disclosure to be necessary was to avert the prospect of disputes as to whether without prejudice material had properly been put before the court