English Court of Appeal discharges worldwide freezing orders in fraud claim due to abuse of process
Published on 12 October 2026
A court can strip a litigant of valuable freezing orders obtained through unconscionable conduct
Salinas Pliego and Ors vs Astor Assessment Management and Ors [2026] is a cautionary tale about the price of unconscionable conduct in litigation. A party secured valuable interim remedies in a fraud claim, only to forfeit them due to abusing the court's process.
The claimants had successfully obtained worldwide freezing orders against the defendants in a fraud action. Unknown to their then-solicitors, they engaged a private investigation firm to trick the defendants' solicitor into divulging privileged information, and applied to court for summary judgment based on that information.
The Court of Appeal found that this was an abuse of process of the court. By way of sanction, the court struck out the summary judgment application and discharged the worldwide freezing orders. In practice, this could make any eventual judgment against the defendants worthless.
The court warned that so-called "privilege hunting" is a serious abuse of process, and solicitors presented with such material must consider not only their professional obligations, but also the risk of criminal exposure.
Background
The claimants brought a fraud action against the defendants, and successfully obtained worldwide freezing orders against them. Without the knowledge of their then-solicitors, they hired a private investigation firm, Black Cube, to obtain intelligence about the defendants. A Black Cube agent, posing as a potential new client, fraudulently induced the defendants' solicitor to attend covertly recorded meetings in Amsterdam, at which the solicitor was plied with alcohol and manipulated into revealing privileged information. When presented with the recordings, the claimants' solicitors refused to listen to them. The claimants instructed a new law firm and applied for summary judgment using the material Black Cube had obtained. The defendants applied to strike out the whole claim as an abuse of process.
The first instance judge found that the claimants had abused the process of the court and was highly critical of their conduct. He struck out the summary judgment application and ordered indemnity costs against the claimants, but declined to strike out the underlying action or the worldwide freezing orders. Both parties appealed.
Court of Appeal decision
The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of abuse of process. On sanction, the court agreed that the summary judgment application should be struck out, but found that striking it out alone was insufficient to reflect the gravity of the conduct. It went further and discharged the worldwide freezing orders the claimants had obtained, on the basis that they would not have been granted if the judge who granted them had been aware of the covert operation. The court commented that a "party in the course of committing a serious abuse of the process of the court could not have expected to benefit from a discretionary remedy such as a freezing order".
The Court of Appeal nonetheless declined to strike out the underlying claim on the basis that discharging the freezing orders was a just and proportionate alternative.
In a postscript, the court warned that privilege hunting operations "should have no place in litigation in the courts of England and Wales", and cautioned that solicitors presented with the fruits of such operations must consider not only their professional responsibilities, but also the risk that using such material could amount to encouraging or assisting their clients to benefit from the commission of criminal offences.
Osborne Clarke comment
This case carries several lessons for those engaged in litigation, and particularly for any litigant who has obtained a freezing order or who is considering hiring a private investigator.
Most obviously, privilege hunting is a serious abuse of process. The Court of Appeal was unequivocal on this point. More broadly, while abuses of the court's process are always unacceptable, parties who seek to obtain and rely on discretionary remedies such as worldwide freezing orders must be especially mindful of their litigation conduct. The freezing orders were issued in order to protect against the dissipation of assets and preserve the defendants' assets for any eventual award. If the claimants ultimately prove their case, the discharge of the freezing orders may have rendered any judgment against the defendants worthless.
On the practical side, it is often necessary in fraud cases to instruct private investigators. It appears the investigators in this case were explicitly instructed to seek privileged material without the knowledge of the claimants' solicitors, but the case is nonetheless a reminder of the importance of engaging investigators responsibly. Solicitors should manage the engagement of any investigators directly, ensure that only reputable firms are instructed, and obtain contractual assurances that all activity will be conducted lawfully and within proper boundaries.
