Catchwords: Interim Relief — Freezing Injunction — Section 25 Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 — Full and Frank Disclosure — Material Non-Disclosure — Misrepresentation of Foreign Court Reasoning — Proportionality — Indemnity Costs – Foreign Divorce and Financial Remedy Proceedings.

The proceedings between the parties provide a striking demonstration of the English High Court’s strict approach to applications for freezing injunctions under Section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (“CJJA 1982”). They also highlight the consequences of failing to meet the duty of full and frank disclosure owed on without‑notice applications, particularly where the applicant misrepresents the reasoning of a foreign court to secure domestic interim relief.

The matter was heard on all three ocaissions by Her Honour de Bertodano (sitting as a High Court Judge). The author conducted the matter on behalf of the Respondent, Barrister (Call 2010), operating under his litigation licence. The Applicant was represented by Concise Legal Solicitors, with Mr Martin Davis appearing for the Applicant on 18 July 2025 and 27 October 2025 whereas Mr Jamil Mohammad appeared for the Applicant on 22 August 2025.

The Turkish Proceedings

The Applicant, a Turkish divorce attorney of some 30 years expereince, commenced divorce and financial remedy proceedings in Turkey on 17 April 2025. The Respondent held extensive assets in both Turkey and the United Kingdom. On 14 May 2025, the Antalya Family Court granted an injunction over certain Turkish assets. However, the Court refused to grant an injunction over the Respondent’s UK assets and stated that a reasoned decision shall be handed down in due course.

Two days later, on 16 May 2025, the Turkish Court issued a reasoned decision stating that the request to freeze UK assets was rejected in accordance with the principle of proportionality. Crucially, the Turkish Court did not state that it lacked jurisdiction, nor did it direct the Applicant to seek relief from the courts of England and Wales.

The Without‑Notice Application in England

On 4 July 2025, the Applicant applied without notice and on an urgent basis in the High Court for a freezing injunction under the section 25 of the CJJA 1982, seeking to restrain dealings in four UK companies owned by the Respondent. In her evidence, the Applicant asserted that:

1. the Turkish Court refused relief over UK assets because it lacked jurisdiction
2. the Turkish Court had “directed” her to seek protection from the English courts
3. the Turkish court’s refusal was final

Each of these assertions was false.

The Applicant did not disclose the 16 May 2025 reasoned judgment, despite being in possession of it and despite having 30 years’ experience as a Turkish advocate. She disclosed only the unreasoned 14 May decision. This omission was material, because the actual reasoning of a foreign court is an essential fact in any application under the 1982 Act.

Relying on the incomplete and misleading material, the Court granted the freezing order on 18 July 2025.

The Respondent’s Challenge and the First Return Hearing

Following the ex parte order, the Respondent instructed the Author on a direct access basis, who wrote to the Applicant’s solicitors immediately. The Respondent filed evidence showing the significant commercial disruption caused by the freezing order, including the collapse of a confidential share sale in one of the companies of which the Respondent was a director and shareholder.

At the return hearing on 22 August 2025, the Respondent argued that the freezing order had been obtained on a false basis due to deliberate non‑disclosure and misrepresentation. The Court accepted this, holding that:

1. the Applicant had failed to disclose the reasoned foreign judgment of 16 May 2025 which directly contradicted her evidence
2. the duty of full and frank disclosure had been breached
3. the application was materially misleading

The injunction was discharged. Costs were awarded to the Respondent, to be assessed later.

The Court listed a further hearing to consider losses caused by the injunction and to allow the Applicant, if she wished, to produce evidence on proportionality under Turkish law and to produce evidence that the Turkish Court directed her seek relief from the English Courts.

Renewed Proceedings in Turkey

Rather than comply with the English Court’s directions, the Applicant returned to the Turkish courts and sought to renew her request for a freezing injunction over the UK assets. That renewed application was rejected on 19 September 2025 on the basis that there had been no change of circumstances. She appealed to the Antalya Regional Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal on 22 October 2025, confirming that:

1. proportionality had been the true basis of the Turkish refusal
2. proportionality did not encompass any jurisdictional limitation
3. the earlier Turkish decisions were interlocutory

The Applicant failed to disclose this appellate dismissal to the High Court until the second return hearing, and even then misrepresented its contents.

The Second Return Hearing and Final Orders

On 27 October 2025, at the second return hearing, the Applicant filed a seventh witness statement and a supplementary skeleton argument at the last minute. She had still not produced the Turkish appeal documents voluntarily and only did so when directed by the Court and requested by the Respondent.

Her Honour Judge de Bertodano found that:

1. the Applicant’s failure to disclose the 16 May decision at the ex parte hearing was a deliberate non‑disclosure
2. her statement that the Turkish Court had directed her to seek relief in England was deliberately misleading
3. her renewed application for freezing relief was wholly without merit
4. the proceedings had been conducted in an unreasonable manner, driving up costs unnecessarily

The High Court dismissed the application to renew the freezing injunction or obtain a preservation order, dismissed the application to adduce further evidence, and ordered:

1. an inquiry into the Respondent’s losses caused by the injunction
2. costs in favour of the Respondent on the indemnity basis
3. security for costs, to be secured against the Applicant’s share of the matrimonial home

Commentary

This case is a clear reminder of the heightened duty of full and frank disclosure on without‑notice applications. It demonstrates that an applicant must accurately present the reasoning of foreign courts when invoking the English court’s powers under Section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982. The English court will not permit parties to relitigate issues already determined abroad, nor will it allow misrepresentation of foreign legal processes to secure interim relief.

The outcome also reinforces the principle that the courts of England and Wales will respect a foreign court’s proportionality assessment and will not impose freezing orders that exceed or contradict the foreign court’s own interim measures.
 

HAMMAD BAIG © 2026

BARRISTER

33 BEDFORD ROW

Hammad Baig practices in the following areas: international trade, indreict tax, insolvency, commercial arbitration, public law and commercial litigation with a specific interest in Customs and Excise Law.

Further articles on topics relating to his practice areas can be read under his Insights and on his blog. Should you wish to instruct Hammad Baig then please do not hesitate to contact his clerk Geoff Carr. 

NOTICE: This article is provided free of charge for information purposes only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. No responsibility for the accuracy and/or correctness of the information and commentary set out in the article, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed or accepted by any member of Chambers or by Chambers as a whole.