Home / Workflows / Applying for a freezing order (formerly Mareva injunction) in Australian courts
Australia-wide (Federal Court and state Supreme Courts) · Litigation

Applying for a freezing order (formerly Mareva injunction) in Australian courts

A freezing order restrains a respondent from disposing of or dealing with assets to defeat a judgment. The applicant must demonstrate a good arguable case on the merits and a real risk of asset dissipation. Applications are typically made ex parte (without notice) in urgent circumstances.

In short

This is an 8-step workflow for obtaining a freezing order to prevent the dissipation of assets pending the resolution of proceedings, governed by Practice Note CM 14 (Federal Court) or the equivalent Supreme Court rules.

Time: 24-72 hours for an urgent ex parte application; longer if made on notice.
Audience: AU litigation lawyers acting for plaintiffs or judgment creditors who need to preserve assets against dissipation before or after judgment.
Run this workflow with Quillio — free trial
Prerequisites

Before you start

  • A good arguable case on the underlying claim
  • Evidence of a real risk of asset dissipation
  • Identification of the respondent's known assets
  • Undertaking as to damages ready to be given
8 steps

The workflow

1

Assess the threshold requirements

Confirm that the applicant has a good arguable case on the merits and that there is a danger that a prospective judgment will be wholly or partly unsatisfied because assets may be disposed of, dealt with, or diminished.

Tools: Quillio
Federal Court Rules 2011 r 7.32
2

Identify and investigate the respondent's assets

Conduct ASIC, land title, PPSR, and company searches to identify the respondent's known assets — real property, bank accounts, shares, vehicles, and interests in entities. This evidence supports the scope of the freezing order.

Tools: Quillio
3

Gather evidence of dissipation risk

Compile evidence of the risk of dissipation: recent asset transfers, offshore movements, restructuring activity, a history of non-compliance with court orders, or direct threats to move assets beyond reach.

Tools: Quillio
Patterson v BTR Engineering (Aust) Ltd (1989) 18 NSWLR 319
4

Prepare the undertaking as to damages

Draft the applicant's undertaking as to damages — a condition of every freezing order. Ensure the client understands the financial exposure if the order is later discharged and the respondent suffers loss.

Tools: Quillio
5

Draft the originating or interlocutory application

Prepare the application in the form required by the court. For ex parte applications, address the duty of full and frank disclosure — the applicant must disclose all material facts, including those adverse to the application.

Tools: Quillio
Thomas A Edison Ltd v Bullock (1912) 15 CLR 679
6

Prepare supporting affidavit evidence

Swear one or more affidavits deposing to the underlying claim, the respondent's assets, the evidence of dissipation risk, and the applicant's ability to satisfy the undertaking as to damages. Annex key documents.

Tools: Quillio
7

Obtain the ex parte freezing order

Appear before the duty judge and present the application. If granted, the order will typically include a return date (usually within 7-14 days) for the respondent to be heard. Arrange immediate personal service on the respondent and on any third parties (e.g. banks).

Tools: Quillio
8

Serve, comply with ancillary obligations, and attend the return date

Serve the order personally on the respondent and notify affected third parties. Comply with any ancillary disclosure orders. Attend the return date prepared to argue for continuation of the freezing order on an inter partes basis.

Tools: Quillio
Outcome

What you will have at the end

A freezing order restraining the respondent from dealing with identified assets, with a return date set for an inter partes hearing on continuation.

Common issues

  • Failing to make full and frank disclosure on an ex parte application, risking discharge
  • Insufficient evidence of dissipation risk — mere suspicion is not enough
  • Not serving the order on banks and third parties promptly, allowing assets to move
  • Underestimating the financial exposure under the undertaking as to damages
  • Seeking an order that is too broad and amounts to security for the claim rather than prevention of dissipation
Use with Quillio

Run this workflow on a real matter

Quillio identifies relevant asset search sources, drafts the affidavit evidence framework, and checks disclosure obligations for ex parte applications. See /practice-areas/litigation-lawyers or start a free trial.

This workflow is a general guide. Freezing orders are an extraordinary remedy — always tailor the application to the specific court rules and practice notes.

Try this workflow with Quillio.

Quillio can run this workflow on a real matter, with citations to current AU authority on every step. The free trial requires no credit card.

Start your free trial