One of the most far-reaching powers in the English Court’s armoury is the freezing order. The purpose of such an order is to prevent a party disposing of its assets (usually up to a specified amount) with the intention or effect of frustrating enforcement of a prospective or already rendered award.

 

In the arbitration context, the English High Court has wide powers to grant such orders in support of arbitral proceedings pursuant to Section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (“the Act”). Such powers extend to granting orders restraining assets of a party wherever they are in the world (a “worldwide freezing order” or “WFO”).

 

In the recent case of U&M Mining Zambia v Konkola Copper Mines, the applicant successfully applied to continue a WFO obtained from the English High Court in support of an LCIA arbitration seated in London. The applicant was successful notwithstanding that the Zambian respondent had no assets within the English jurisdiction, and in circumstances where the applicant could avail itself of adequate relief in the jurisdiction in which the assets subject to the application were located (i.e. the Zambian High Court).

 

This case serves as both a valuable reminder to applicants of the robust and practical approach taken by English Courts when considering such applications, and as a salutary lesson to respondents that their conduct in the proceedings may be used against them to justify the imposition of a WFO.

 

 

The power of the English Court to grant freezing orders in support of arbitral proceedings is derived from Section 44 of the Act.