The Royal Court of Jersey (the Jersey Court) requires plaintiffs seeking a freezing order to establish a real risk of unjustified asset dissipation. This article explains the legal test, the different evidential contexts before and after judgment, and practical points for enforcing judgments and arbitration awards against Jersey assets.
When will the Jersey Court grant a Freezing Order?
A freezing order is a protective remedy available from the Jersey Court to prevent a defendant dealing with assets in a manner that could frustrate enforcement of a future judgment or arbitration award. It does not give the plaintiff security for its claim. As the Deputy Bailiff warned in Dandara (Jersey) Limited v Clancy [2025] JRC 068 (Dandara), the plaintiff’s wish for security must not be confused with the need for objective evidence of a real risk of dissipation.
The plaintiff must show a real risk that the defendant will unjustifiably dissipate its assets. Because the order restricts the defendant's freedom to deal with its property, the Jersey Court expects 'solid evidence' rather than mere inference or generalised assertion (see Dandara, applying Crociani v Crociani [2019] JRC 028B).
The same legal requirement applies whether relief is sought before or after judgment, but the evidential context matters. Before judgment, liability remains unproven and the defendant may ultimately establish that no debt is owed. After judgment or an arbitration award, the obligation has been adjudicated and the evidence required is in practice lighter.
What must a plaintiff prove to obtain a freezing order in Jersey?
In Dandara, adopting the formulation applied by the English courts, the Jersey Court confirmed that a plaintiff must establish: i) a good arguable case / serious issue to be tried; ii) a real risk, judged objectively, that a future judgment would not be met because of an unjustified dissipation of assets; and iii) that it is just and convenient to grant the relief.
For the serious issue limb, Dandara, adopting Popplewell LJ's reasoning in Isabel dos Santos v Unitel SA [2024] EWCA Civ 1109 (dos Santos), confirmed that the test is similar to showing a real prospect of success.
The plaintiff need not show that success at trial is more likely than not, but the claim must be more than merely arguable and must carry some degree of conviction. Jersey therefore follows the current English approach. The merits threshold is not a demanding one; the invasive nature of the relief is addressed instead through anxious scrutiny of the dissipation and just and convenient limbs, the safeguards and exceptions in the order, and the cross-undertaking in damages.
For the second limb, the plaintiff must adduce solid evidence, assessed cumulatively and separately for each defendant. Relevant indicators may include concealment, unexplained transfers, dishonesty connected with enforcement, a lack of transparency about assets, or conduct suggesting that assets may be moved beyond reach. Allegations of dishonesty are not enough on their own: the court asks whether the dishonesty points to a risk of dissipation. What must be threatened is unjustified dissipation, and an order is not intended to stop a defendant conducting his affairs as he always has. Prior use of offshore structures is relevant but is not itself a risk.
In Dandara, the Jersey Court refused to make a freezing order. Even though the defendant had refused to identify his other assets and the plaintiff relied on his lack of transparent disclosure, the Jersey Court found no real risk of unjustified dissipation and did not treat the non-disclosure as enough to justify granting a freezing order.
For the third limb, the Jersey Court must also be satisfied that granting a freezing order is just and convenient. It will consider proportionality, safeguards, exceptions and the applicant's cross-undertaking in damages. A freezing order is not an 'interim' order dependent on the balance of convenience like an American Cyanamid injunction (Dandara, citing dos Santos).
Freezing orders sought in pre-judgment and post-judgment scenarios
In Goldtron Limited v Most Investment Limited [2002] JLR 424, the Jersey Court held that post-judgment relief is materially different from pre-trial relief. Once money is owed, freezing assets and requiring disclosure may be comparatively straightforward where needed to prevent the judgment being rendered nugatory. Before judgment, the claim may fail. The legal test remains the same, but the evidence required is in practice lighter after judgment or award.
How does the Jersey Court assist judgment creditors with enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitration awards?
The Jersey Court has made clear that Jersey should not become a safe haven for persons seeking to evade liabilities imposed by courts or arbitral tribunals. That policy supports effective enforcement, but it does not dispense with the requirement to demonstrate a real risk of unjustified dissipation or with the duty to keep the relief proportionate.
In OWH SE.i.L v RTI Ltd [2025] JRC 145 (OWH), the Jersey Court refused to set aside a freezing order obtained in support of a London arbitration award. The decision illustrates that, after an award, the Jersey Court may draw broader inferences from the surrounding circumstances when assessing whether assets are at risk, although mere inference remains insufficient without an evidential foundation. The Jersey Court nevertheless examined the evidence and the proposed safeguards carefully.
The judge held that the post-award freezing order should remain in place and the Jersey Court treated the absence of information about the defendant's financial position or business, and the absence of offered security, as potentially significant.
Concrete evidence of an intention to remove assets is not always available in a post-award application. Practical indicators identified in the post-judgment context include:
- prolonged or indefensible delay in making a material payment;
- arguments advanced only after the judgment or award; and
- the defendant's general conduct.
These factors are not automatic grounds for relief and must be assessed in the circumstances of the particular case. But where an unsuccessful defendant has failed for a prolonged period to pay a judgment debt or award when due, that failure may itself indicate a real risk of dissipation.
Practical implications for judgment creditors
The Jersey authorities provide a practical framework for cross-border enforcement. Plaintiffs should identify Jersey assets early, gather evidence of non-payment, delay, lack of transparency or other conduct suggesting dissipation, and tailor freezing and disclosure relief to the risk shown. Applications must be supported by evidence, not assumption.
Conclusion
These principles developed by the Jersey Court provide a practical framework for assessing the evidential threshold when seeking a freezing order at different stages of a claim. The legal test is the same at both stages, but the evidence required in practice is lighter once liability has been crystallised in a judgment or arbitration award than where the defendant's liability remains to be determined.
The distinction reflects the Jersey Court's careful balance between ensuring that a defendant is not subjected to unwarranted restrictions before liability is established and ensuring that effective relief remains available to judgment creditors where a judgment debt remains unsatisfied for a prolonged period.
