When someone fears their spouse might secretly move or liquidate assets before a financial settlement, the situation can quickly become stressful and uncertain. A freezing injunction, or freezing order, would serve that purpose perfectly. It sets a pause on any transfer, sale, or disposal of assets until the matter is worked out.
There’s a growing trend in financial conflict cases. Last year alone, approximately 10,300 financial remedy orders were contested, marking a dramatic increase of 66% from the previous year, which is the highest in over a decade.
Stopping Asset Dissipation Before It Happens
Are you familiar with how someone can effortlessly drain a bank account and quickly sell off assets? A freezing injunction ensures that it does not happen. Everything is preserved, and the complete pool of assets is intact until decisions are made.
There was a case of individuals who transferred £200,000 the day their divorce papers were served. Is it that sudden a decision from the parties involved that a freezing order is essential?
Ensuring Fairness When Dividing Marital Assets
If there's conflict regarding trust assets, business interests, or real estate owned jointly, one party could try to liquidate them as quickly as possible. A freezing order prevents any transfer or disposal of assets until the legal matter is settled. I had a client where a spouse attempted to dispose of a jointly owned house immediately after a divorce. The court intervened and applied a freezing order to maintain equilibrium until resolution was achieved.
Enforcing Compliance With Financial Rulings
Sometimes, courts make orders for parties to, for instance, transfer property or make payments. Such actions can be stalled, but these orders assure that the court directives shall not be ignored.
One matter I handled, the transfer of assets, was only done after a freezing order was obtained. All of a sudden, the other party was compliant. This demonstrates that these orders are not mere formalities, rather, they enable decisive actions and strengthen your standing.
Preventing Hidden Transfers or Fraudulent Moves
Unfortunately, some people actively try to illegally conceal assets within a company by transferring shares to a “friend”, concealing the titles to properties, or other means of monetising the assets and moving them out of reach. A freezing order halts all progress while an investigation is carried out.
I recall a case where a spouse had transferred shares to a third party. Preventing further movement of the shares exposed the concealment and demand for full disclosure.
Protecting Assets You’re Trying to Recover
At times, certain shifts to your assets might have occurred, like the balance in a joint bank account or documents changing. A portion that is still remaining might be computed and fought over to recover everything else. A chopping order can lock down what is still remaining and a portion that can be computed.
Uncovering 150,000 pounds missing from a joint account just the moment negotiations began. With a freezing order, the remaining balance can be temporarily secured, and the account can be traced and the balance reclaimed.
How It All Ties Together
The courts expect full honesty. Should you opt to act more urgently, as in some cases, before the other party is even notified, there is an expectation to be fully transparent. Making any attempt to hide information can lead to the order being overturned, as submission of verifiable information is mandatory.
These types of payment restrictions will let you spend on living expenses, business expenses, and even pay for legal fees. The other party is still permitted to live their life and make transactions, but the major movements of assets will be put to a halt. Such a type of payment restriction is only put in the absence of compelling reasons to explain the erosion of the assets.
What You Should Know Before Applying
There are some important responsibilities and potential downsides when applying for a freeze. You’ll usually need to give a cross‑undertaking in damages, which means that if the order turns out to have been unfairly made, you may have to compensate the other side for losses, even significant ones.
Courts expect full honesty, especially if you apply without warning the other party. Any hidden detail could get the order reversed and lead to cost sanctions.
Also, if your freeze is imprecise or too broad, courts can strike it out, your wording needs to be carefully thought out. And judges will consider whether damages without freezing might be enough. Freezing is a serious step, if they think money would suffice, they may refuse it.
Conclusion
If you think that you need something of this nature, it may be treated as being excessive, but it works the other way, as it tends to lean towards protecting your assets. It is a legal way to put a freeze on the assets, enforce any legal decisions, prevent fraud, and allow a fair environment during the entire process of settlement.
What is legally meant to be yours is stored in the form of assets and is safe. Your financial rights are enforced and ensured to be measured, and what you are doing is strategic and proactive for your rights.
