Global Asset Portfolio Limited v Fazriki Limited & Ors

Continuation of a freezing injunction requires a good arguable case on the underlying claim and a real risk of dissipation without relief. The court may assess the contractual purpose of transferred funds and the parties’ subsequent assurances when deciding whether those requirements are met. Immediate diversion of funds to property purchases and associated entities may strongly evidence dissipation where the defendants provide no satisfactory account of the funds. Prejudice from the injunction carries limited weight where the order permits reasonable legal and living expenses and the defendants provide no proper evidence of their assets or business activity. The injunction may be avoided by demonstrating that the claimant’s money has been ring-fenced and remains under the defendants’ control for the claimant’s benefit.

The claimant supplied US$9.4 million to the first defendant under an agreement concerning investment in the Opus 4 fund. The claimant alleged breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation, including a representation that the money would be held in a non-depletion account.

Following evidence obtained through Norwich Pharmacal orders, the claimant alleged that most of the money had shortly afterwards been paid to associated companies, individuals and a residential property. A without notice freezing injunction was granted on 13 January 2026. At the return hearing, the first and second defendants disputed the contractual restrictions on use of the money, denied fraud and challenged the continuation of the injunction.

The issues were whether there remained a good arguable case, whether there was a real risk of dissipation, and whether the alleged prejudice to the defendants justified discharge or variation of the order.

1. The freezing injunction was continued. The claimant had established a good arguable case in contract and fraudulent misrepresentation. The agreement, read with the contract concerning the Opus 4 fund, did not permit the defendants to use the money without restriction. The underlying investment arrangement appeared to terminate after one year, in which event the money would have to be returned.
2. The payments made soon after receipt of the US$9.4 million, including the payment used to acquire a house and payments to associated companies and individuals, were very difficult to characterise as proper investments. The defendants had not explained the disbursements or produced documents demonstrating that the money was held elsewhere for the claimant.
3. The later corporate guarantee referring to a non-depletion account made it highly arguable that the concept was not invented by the claimant, even though the expression did not appear in the contract. The claimant therefore had a good arguable case on the alleged representation.
4. There was a real risk of dissipation. The rapid dispersal of the money, the absence of reliable information about its current location, and the defendants’ failure to provide asset information established that risk.
5. The defendants’ asserted prejudice did not justify discharge. The order allowed reasonable legal expenses and £500 per week for ordinary living expenses. The defendants provided no adequate evidence of their assets or business activity. They could avoid the practical effects of the injunction by showing that US$9.4 million had been ring-fenced and was held for the claimant’s benefit.
6. As a condition of continuing the injunction, the claimant was ordered to place £100,000 in a solicitors’ client account within 28 days and to provide further evidence of the assets supporting its cross-undertaking. The defendants remained subject to the existing asset-disclosure obligations.

not stated in the judgment.