Mareva (Freezing) Injunctions in Hong Kong: A Practical Guide

A Mareva injunction, also called a freezing injunction, is one of the most powerful tools in Hong Kong litigation: a court order that stops a defendant from moving or dissipating assets before a judgment can be enforced against them. It is often decisive in a cross-border dispute, where money can leave the jurisdiction in hours. This guide explains what a Mareva injunction is, the legal basis for it in Hong Kong, the test the court applies, your duties when you apply, and how freezing orders reach assets abroad, including cryptocurrency. For help on a live matter, see our cross-border commercial disputes practice.

A Mareva injunction is an interlocutory order that freezes a defendant’s assets so they are still there to satisfy a judgment at the end of the case. It takes its name from the English case Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulkcarriers SA [1975], and in modern terminology is a “freezing injunction”. It does not give the applicant any ownership of or security over the frozen assets, and it does not put the applicant ahead of other creditors. Its single purpose is to preserve the position until the dispute is decided. Because it can paralyse a business overnight, the courts treat it as an exceptional remedy and hold applicants to high standards.

It is worth distinguishing two freezing orders that are often confused. A Mareva injunction freezes any of the defendant’s assets, simply to preserve funds to meet a future judgment, and the applicant must show a real risk that assets will be dissipated. A proprietary injunction, by contrast, targets specific assets that the applicant claims actually belong to them (for example money paid away by fraud), and because ownership is in issue the applicant does not need to prove a risk of dissipation, so the threshold is lower. Choosing the right order matters, and the two are sometimes sought together.

The power comes from the High Court Ordinance (Cap. 4). Section 21L(1) lets the Court of First Instance grant an injunction “in all cases in which it appears to the Court of First Instance to be just or convenient to do so”, and section 21L(3) confirms the specific power to restrain a party from removing assets from, or dealing with assets within, the jurisdiction. Section 21M goes further and allows the court to grant interim relief, including a freezing order, in aid of proceedings taking place outside Hong Kong, provided those proceedings could lead to a judgment enforceable in Hong Kong. The procedure is governed by Order 29 of the Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A), and the Judiciary’s Practice Directions 11.1 and 11.2 set out how urgent and Mareva or Anton Piller applications are made.

To obtain a Mareva injunction in Hong Kong, an applicant generally has to show:

• A good arguable case on a substantive claim against the defendant. This is a higher threshold than the “serious issue to be tried” test for an ordinary injunction, but the applicant does not have to prove they are more likely than not to win.
• That the defendant has assets (within Hong Kong, or, for a worldwide order, abroad).
• A real risk of dissipation of those assets before judgment. This must be shown with solid evidence, not mere assertion; the court can infer a risk where there is evidence of dishonesty or a low standard of commercial morality, and unexplained delay by the applicant weakens the argument.

Above all this sits the court’s discretion under section 21L(1): it will only grant the order where it is just or convenient to do so.

Speed and surprise are essential. A Mareva application is almost always made ex parte, meaning without notice to the defendant, so that the defendant is not tipped off and given the chance to move the assets first. In an urgent case the application can be made to the duty judge, supported by an affidavit setting out the evidence. If granted, the order is temporary and comes with a return date, a hearing a short time later at which the defendant can appear and argue that the order should be varied or discharged.

Because the defendant is not present when the order is made, an ex parte applicant owes the court a strict duty of full and frank disclosure: you must put before the court all the important facts within your knowledge, including those that are unhelpful to your case. If you fail to do so, the injunction can be discharged even if it would otherwise have been justified. You will also normally be required to give an undertaking in damages, a promise to compensate the defendant (and affected third parties, such as banks) if it later turns out the order should not have been granted. The court can require that undertaking to be fortified with security.

In an exceptional case the Hong Kong court can grant a worldwide Mareva injunction reaching the defendant’s assets abroad, not only those in Hong Kong. A freezing order is also usually supported by ancillary orders that give it teeth, in particular a disclosure of assets order requiring the defendant to reveal the nature and location of their assets. Where assets are held by someone else for the defendant, a Chabra order can freeze assets in the hands of a third party. To preserve evidence rather than assets, the court can grant an Anton Piller (search) order, from Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes Ltd [1976], allowing the applicant’s representatives to enter premises and secure documents before they can be destroyed.

This is where Hong Kong is particularly useful in a cross-border dispute. Under section 21M of the High Court Ordinance, a party to litigation abroad can apply to the Hong Kong court for a freezing order over assets here, as free-standing relief, without having to bring the whole case in Hong Kong, as long as the foreign judgment would be enforceable here. For arbitration, the arrangement between Hong Kong and the Mainland on interim measures, in force since 1 October 2019, lets a party to a Hong Kong, HKIAC-administered arbitration apply to Mainland courts for asset preservation, a route available from very few other seats. For more on arbitration, see our guide to arbitration in Hong Kong.

Freezing orders are increasingly used to chase digital assets. Hong Kong courts have treated cryptocurrency as property that can be the subject of a freezing or proprietary injunction, and have granted a freezing order served directly on the blockchain, a “tokenised” injunction, to reach holders of unknown wallets. Combined with disclosure orders to trace funds through exchanges, a freezing order can be an effective first step in recovering misappropriated crypto, though the technology moves quickly and each case turns on its facts. This is a developing area, so early, specialist advice matters.

If you are served with a freezing order, comply with it immediately: breaching a court order is a contempt of court, punishable by a fine or imprisonment. You do not have to simply live with it, though. At the return date you can apply to vary or discharge the order, for example on the grounds that there is no good arguable case, that the applicant failed to give full and frank disclosure, or that there is no real risk of dissipation. A properly drafted order also contains carve-outs allowing the defendant to meet ordinary living expenses, legitimate business expenses and reasonable legal costs.