Benjamin Gilbert & Anor v Broadoak Private Finance Limited

A free-standing application for a freezing injunction is not a claim under Senior Courts Act 1981, section 37(1), for the purpose of the enactment gateway in Practice Direction 6B. The gateway requires a claim-conferring enactment which gives an applicant a statutory claim. Section 37(1) is a general provision confirming the court’s power to grant remedies; it does not itself allow proceedings to be brought.

The injunction gateway does not permit service out of a free-standing freezing-order application. Nor does the property gateway apply merely because the order would assist enforcement of an English judgment. The subject matter is the restraint of dealings with assets, and its connection with property in the jurisdiction must be strong.

The Gilbert claimants held judgments against Broadoak Private Finance Ltd for unpaid loans. Evidence obtained during enforcement suggested that Broadoak had transferred substantial sums without proper purpose to, or for the benefit of, two respondents in Spain.

A without-notice worldwide freezing order on Chabra grounds was made against the respondents. On the return date, the High Court held that the substantive conditions for relief were satisfied, but set aside the order because no gateway permitted service of the application out of the jurisdiction: [2026] EWHC 153 (Comm).

The claimants appealed on the enactment gateway and sought permission to rely also on the injunction and property gateways in Practice Direction 6B. The central issue was whether a post-judgment, free-standing freezing-order application could be served on non-cause-of-action defendants abroad.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court upheld the conclusion that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the respondents because no relevant service-out gateway applied. Permission to advance the injunction and property-gateway grounds was refused.

2. The enactment gateway covers a claim under an enactment which allows proceedings to be brought. It therefore concerns a claim-conferring statutory scheme, not a provision which generally defines a court’s remedial powers. Section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 confirms the power to grant injunctions, but neither creates the criteria for a particular injunction nor confers a self-standing statutory claim. A freezing-order application was consequently not a claim under section 37(1) for this purpose. The court approved the relevant obiter analysis in AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP v Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC [2011] EWCA Civ 647 and distinguished the disclosure provisions considered in Gorbachev v Guriev [2023] EWCA Civ 1270.

3. The injunction gateway remains confined to proceedings seeking substantive injunctive relief for an invasion of a legal or equitable right. The court followed Siskina (Owners of the Cargo) v Distos Cia Naviera SA [1979] AC 210 and the subsequent confirmation in Broad Idea International Ltd v Convoy Collateral Ltd [2021] UKPC 24. Changes to this settled procedural rule are for the Rules Committee.

4. The subject matter of a freezing-order application is the restraint of dealings with the respondents’ assets. An English judgment supplies an enforcement interest, but does not make the application one which wholly or principally relates to property in the jurisdiction. The worldwide character of the relief also prevented reliance on the respondents’ limited English assets.

5. Although obiter, the proviso to the enactment gateway would not exclude a qualifying statutory claim merely because another gateway covers a different form of relief under the same enactment. The freezing order was continued temporarily pending submissions on consequential orders.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the claimants’ appeal and upheld the setting aside of the worldwide freezing order for want of a service-out gateway: [2026] EWCA Civ 1172 .

• High Court, London Circuit Commercial Court: held that the substantive conditions for Chabra freezing relief were met, but set aside the order because the respondents in Spain could not be served out under Practice Direction 6B: [2026] EWHC 153 (Comm).

• Without-notice application: His Honour Judge Bird granted the worldwide freezing order on 30 July 2025.