A door with no key
The problem was reach. English courts need a specific rule, known as a gateway, before court papers can be served on someone abroad. The judge found none fit. The wife had disclosed about £5,000 in an English bank account. However, the gateway for injunctions covers only final relief, not freezing orders, under a 1979 House of Lords ruling the judge said bound him.
On September 22, 2026, the Court of Appeal agreed with him. The investors argued the Senior Courts Act 1981, which lets courts grant injunctions where it is “just and convenient,” opened a route. In a unanimous decision, the court rejected that. The lead judgment said the provision is a general statement of the court’s power, not a law that hands claimants a claim they can bring against people overseas. The court also refused permission on two further arguments. One of them would have treated the English judgment debt itself as property in England.
The court acknowledged the outcome “might not be seen as entirely attractive,” given that the High Court found every condition for a freeze was met. It called it “a curiosity” that the rules allow a freezing order to be served abroad to support a foreign judgment but not an English one. Whether to change that, it said, is for the Rules Committee, which sets court procedure.
Not the last word
The investors have since brought claims under the Insolvency Act 1986 and for constructive trust relief. The court said these “would appear to provide an appropriate vehicle” for their case. It said they can be served abroad on established authority and can provide a basis for seeking a new freezing order. “The NCADs’ success on this appeal may yet prove to be pyrrhic,” the lead judgment said, referring to the wife and the Spanish company. The existing order stays in place until the court finalises its ruling on next steps.
For lenders and investors pursuing a borrower’s money overseas, the case shows that meeting every test for a freezing order does not guarantee an English court can serve it abroad.
