Freezing orders: applicants (including liquidators) face high hurdle to justify cap on cross-undertaking in damages

Jan O’Neill of Herbert Smith Freehills shares that the Court of Appeal has set aside a freezing order obtained by a provisional liquidator on the basis that the cross-undertaking in damages given by him was inadequate because it was limited to the amount recovered for the estate, and he had not discharged the burden of showing good reason to depart from the “default position” that a cross-undertaking should be unlimited in amount.

Read more.