In Gilbert v Broadoak Private Finance Limited[1], it was held that a worldwide freezing order against respondents in Spain should be set aside for lack of jurisdiction, even though the “substantive conditions for Chabra freezing relief” were satisfied..
Claimants seeking Chabra relief against respondents out of the jurisdiction have to satisfy at least one of jurisdictional gateways set out by PD 6B, and the Court in Gilbert held that none of the gateways relied on by the claimants had been satisfied.
Significantly, in its analysis of the “necessary or proper party” gateway, the case highlights the difficulties for claimants seeking Chabra relief against respondents outside of the jurisdiction where the main claim has been decided. Following Gilbert, it is unlikely that post-judgment Chabra claimants will have success in their attempts to attain freezing orders against overseas respondents (absent an appeal being allowed by the Court of Appeal[2]).
What is Chabra relief?
The Chabra jurisdiction is a powerful instrument for any claimant who litigates against evasive defendants. Established in the seminal case of TSB Private Bank International SA v Chabra[3], the jurisdiction permits the Court to freeze the assets of a third party if it is found that, or there is reasonable cause to believe that, the assets are in fact beneficially owned by the defendant.
In Chabra, TSB (Bank) brought a claim under a guarantee against Mr Chabra. Arguing that he had intentionally dissipated his assets through a complex web of companies who acted on his behalf, TSB applied for a freezing order against a company owned by Mr Chabra and his wife, despite it not being a defendant in the proceedings.
TSB’s application for the freezing order was granted. The court held that despite there being no cause of action against the third-party company, there was evidence in support of the company assets being beneficially owned by Mr Chabra and therefore the assets could be used to satisfy the judgement against him.
What happened in Gilbert?
In Chabra, the defendant’s assets were held within the jurisdiction, and the claim was ongoing. This was not the case in Gilbert. Having already obtained a judgment in England against Broadoak Private Finance, the claimants sought a Worldwide Freezing Order against two individuals in Spain, believing that the assets were beneficially owned by Broadoak, on the Chabra basis.
In order to serve an application for Chabra relief out of the jurisdiction, the claimant needs the court’s permission. In addition to demonstrating that the application has reasonable prospects of success and that England and Wales is the correct jurisdiction in which to bring the application, the application must satisfy at least one of the jurisdictional gateways in PD 6B, paragraph 3.1. In Gilbert, the claimants sought to rely on five of these gateways ((2), (3), (10), (11) and (20)), with no success on any.
Closing the jurisdictional gateways
The Court analysed each relevant gateway and concluded that none applied in the case. Taking each in turn:
Gateway (2) applies where “a claim is made for an injunction ordering the defendant to do or refrain from doing an act within the jurisdiction”. Applying Siskina v Distos Cia Naviera SA[4], the Court held that “the term “injunction” […] referred only to an injunction sought as final, substantive relief” and “did not include a freezing injunction or other interlocutory injunction”. In short, because a freezing order is ancillary relief and not “final, substantive relief”, “gateway (2) does not apply to a freezing injunction”.
Gateway (3) allows service out where the claimant wishes to serve the claim form on another person who is a “necessary or proper party” to that claim. The court followed Commercial Bank of Dubai v Al Sari[5] and held that there must be a real issue to be tried “as against the anchor defendant and the [third party]”. As final judgment had already been entered against Broadoak, “the mere possibility that such an issue might arise at some point cannot be sufficient”.
Gateway (10) applies to assist claims “made to enforce any judgement”, and the court held that Chabra relief is not enforcement but ancillary relief to assist in enforcement (International Ltd v Humpuss Sea Transport Pte Ltd[6]).
Gateway (11) applies where “the subject matter of the claim relates wholly or principally to property within the jurisdiction”. The claimants argued that the relevant property was the English judgment debt, but the court rejected this, holding that the application concerned the respondents’ assets and their potential dissipation, not the judgment debt itself.
Gateway (20) applies where a claim is brought under an enactment permitting proceedings, but the court held that s.37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 does not qualify, as it concerns remedies available in proceedings otherwise properly brought, not a standalone basis for proceedings. David Quest KC did, however, note conflicting extrajudicial views on the issue from Foxton LJ (who posited that Gateway 20 could be used for freezing orders) and Henshaw J (who remained sceptical).
Conclusion
Gilbert is a reminder that the Chabra jurisdiction, however powerful, remains tightly constrained by the rules on service out of the jurisdiction. Even where the substantive requirements for Chabra relief are satisfied, the claimant must still pass through a jurisdictional gateway.
The decision therefore reinforces the high jurisdictional bar facing post judgment claimants seeking to freeze assets held overseas. Whilst it may seem unduly harsh that claimants who have a good claim in principle to Chabra relief may be unable to establish jurisdiction, the Judge’s closing reiteration of Foxton J in Commercial Bank of Dubai[7] confirmed that “’if there is to be a general power to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction to assist the enforcement of an English judgment debt, that is a matter for the Rules Committee”. Baton duly passed.
Jake Henson, Edmonds Marshall McMahon
[1] [2026] EWHC 153 (KB)
[2] CA-2026-000379
[3] 1992] 1 W.L.R. 231
[4] [1979] AC 210
[5] [2024] EWHC 3304
[6] [2011] EWHC 2339
[7] [2025] EWHC 1810 (Comm)
