The ‘good arguable case’ test is under debate. Alan Sheeley & Sara Esfandyari explain how clearer wording could help practitioners and fraud victims
- Considers recent case law seeking to clarify the ‘good arguable case’ requirement in freezing order applications.
- Examines the judgments in detail and makes the case for fresh consideration by the Court of Appeal.
Freezing orders are a vital tool for victims of fraud looking to pursue their losses through the courts, to ensure assets are preserved to satisfy any judgment. They are often sought pre-proceedings, frequently under time pressure and without notice to the defendant, given the need to avoid assets being dissipated.
If a claimant wishes to obtain a freezing order against a defendant, their application must meet certain criteria. One of these is that the claimant must have a ‘good arguable case on the merits’.
But when is a case a ‘good arguable’ one? This has been debated recently in Unitel SA v Unitel International Holdings BV and another [2023] EWHC 3231 (Comm) and
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b21f1aaf_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=754d0e82_1)
