This chapter is divided into two sections. The first provides a summary of the conclusions relating to the substantive scope of freezing injunctions. It proposes a number of changes to the preconditions for obtaining a freezing injunction in order to improve certainty and create a level playing field in litigation. The need to establish a good arguable case on the merits is considered, taking into account some positive developments in this area. The case law on the real risk of dissipation of assets is the main focus of criticism. The second section of the chapter contains some thematic comments on the international scope of freezing injunctions and explains the need for a more restrictive approach in future cases.

This chapter recognises the practical reality that in high-value, cross-border commercial litigation it is frequent to see claimants making applications for more than one type of interim relief. In addition to a freezing injunction and an ancillary disclosure order, the complexity of the facts and the defendant’s conduct may lead the claimant to apply for an anti-suit injunction, an anti-enforcement injunction, a Norwich Pharmacal order and/or a receivership order. It is suggested that this potential for a ‘kitchen sink’ approach to interim relief raises concerns about the financial pressure on defendants, the pressure on the English courts, and the consistency of the courts’ reasoning relating to the extraterritorial scope of interim relief. The significance of taking into account the pressure on the courts cannot be underestimated as the potential for delays resulting from interim relief may undermine access to justice. The chapter examines the relationship between freezing injunctions and other types of interim relief.