Gable Insurance AG v William Dewsall & Ors

A worldwide freezing order has distinct domestic and overseas dimensions. Failure to establish the respondent’s overseas assets does not necessarily require domestic relief to be discharged. The court may continue the order for domestic assets, against appropriate defendants, where the ordinary requirements are met. A defendant against whom a proprietary tracing claim is pleaded is not merely a Chabra or non-cause-of-action defendant. Where funds are subject to an arguable proprietary claim, legal expenses should ordinarily be met from assets unaffected by that claim. If those assets are inadequate, the court must balance the claimant’s proprietary interest against the defendant’s ability to defend the proceedings, with the burden on the defendant to establish inadequacy. A consent undertaking permitting expenses from frozen assets is construed in context and does not displace those principles without clear language.

Gable Insurance AG, an insurer in liquidation, brought claims concerning alleged misappropriations by its former chief executive and related tracing claims against his wife. A worldwide freezing order was made against the defendants. At the February 2025 hearing, the High Court discharged the overseas aspect against Mr Dewsall but continued domestic freezing relief against Mrs Dewsall and others. The resulting Freezing Order limited Mrs Dewsall’s access to the proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home and required staged sales of jewellery to fund legal expenses. Mrs Dewsall appealed on five grounds, concerning the domestic freezing order, expert evidence, litigation and living expenses, sale conditions, and costs. The central issues were whether domestic relief could survive failure of the overseas case and how the proprietary claim affected access to frozen funds.

The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed all five grounds of appeal. Sir Launcelot Henderson gave the leading judgment, with Asplin LJ and Lewison LJ agreeing.

1. A worldwide freezing order may be continued in whole or in part for domestic assets, and against some defendants only, even where the evidence does not sustain its overseas scope. The court applied the requirements summarised in Convoy Collateral Ltd v Broad Idea International Ltd [2021] UKPC 24; [2023] AC 389. A domestic asset assessment is integral to the application, and overseas relief is the more draconian remedy requiring careful scrutiny, as established in Derby & Co Ltd v Weldon (No 1) [1990] Ch 48.
2. Mrs Dewsall was not confined to the Chabra jurisdiction. A pleaded claim to trace misappropriated funds into property or its proceeds made her a substantive defendant for present purposes. The court’s jurisdiction under section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 was broad and extended to cases where it was just and equitable to restrain assets amid substantial uncertainty about ownership.
3. For legal and living expenses, the usual Marino principles applied. A defendant should first use resources unaffected by the proprietary claim. If those resources are absent or inadequate, the court must assess the four questions identified in Independent Trustee Services Ltd v GP Noble Trustees Ltd [2009] EWHC 161 (Ch), including the balance of justice. Mrs Dewsall had valuable jewellery available and had not shown that she could not defend the claim without using the Weald Hall proceeds.
4. Her undertaking was construed as a whole and in context. Its reference to dealing with the proceeds consistently with the standard exception did not create an unrestricted entitlement to use proprietary assets merely by notifying the claimant. The Judge was entitled to require staged jewellery sales, restricted accounts, and supervision. The appeal court also declined to interfere with the case-management and costs decisions, applying the caution in Abdulle v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis: Practice Note [2015] EWCA Civ 1260; [2016] 1 WLR 898.
5. Ground 2 had been overtaken by the later grant of permission for Mrs Dewsall to rely on forensic accountancy evidence. The application to admit updated contextual evidence was accepted for what it was worth, and the costs issue was reserved.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 11 July 2025, unanimously dismissed Mrs Dewsall’s appeal on all five grounds: [2025] EWCA Civ 884.
• High Court of Justice, Business List: Following judgments J1, J2 and J3, the court made the Freezing Order dated 6 March 2025. It discharged the overseas aspect of WFO 2 against Mr Dewsall but continued domestic freezing relief against Mrs Dewsall, Mr Dewsall and HRC, subject to specified limits and exceptions.