Key takeaway

The Arbitration Act 2025 significantly strengthens the English courts’ powers to support arbitration by confirming that interim relief under section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996 may be granted against third parties. For London-seated arbitrations, this creates a more effective route to worldwide freezing orders, asset protection and interim injunctions where assets are held by connected entities, trustees, nominees or controlling individuals.

Why do third-party freezing orders matter in international arbitration?

International disputes rarely involve a single opponent sitting on a pile of accessible assets. More often, the respondent you are pursuing in arbitration is surrounded by a web of connected entities, offshore holding companies, family trusts, group subsidiaries, nominees, all carefully positioned to make enforcement as difficult as possible. Until recently, English law left a significant gap in the armoury of those seeking to protect assets pending an award. The Arbitration Act 2025 has closed it.

In force since 1 August 2025, the Act amends section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996 to expressly extend the English courts' powers to grant interim relief, including worldwide freezing orders (WFOs), against persons who are not party to the arbitration. The change is deceptively simple in its drafting but far-reaching in its effect. We set out what has changed, why it matters, and what practical steps those involved in London-seated arbitrations should now be taking.

What was the gap in section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996?

Section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996 has always conferred important powers on the English courts to support arbitral proceedings, including the ability to grant injunctions and other interim measures. The problem was that section 44(1) did not make clear how far those powers extended. Could they reach third parties? The case law was confused and contradictory.

In Cruz City v Unitech [2014] EWHC 3704 (Comm), the High Court concluded that the power under section 44 did not extend to non-parties. The position was no clearer following DTEK Trading SA v Morozon [2017] EWHC 1704 (Comm). These decisions left prior ambiguity and inconsistencies in the case law which the 2025 Act was designed to resolve.

The practical consequence was stark. Where assets were held by a parent company, a trustee, or a controlling individual outside the arbitration, claimants had to bring separate proceedings to reach them, a slow, expensive, and uncertain process that often allowed dissipation to occur in the meantime.

What does the Arbitration Act 2025 change about freezing orders?

The fix introduced by the Arbitration Act 2025 is elegant. Section 9 of the Act amends section 44(1) by inserting five words: "whether in relation to a party or any other person."

The Act now explicitly confirms that orders under section 44 may be made whether in relation to a party or any other person- meaning that an order under section 44 can be made with respect to third parties to an arbitration.

The result is that the full menu of section 44 relief, including worldwide freezing orders, preservation of evidence, appointment of a receiver, and interim injunctions, can now be sought against third parties in a single application, without the need for parallel proceedings or creative jurisdictional workarounds.

The 2025 Act resolves long-standing uncertainty about the English courts' powers to issue orders against third parties by way of interim relief in support of arbitration proceedings, clarifying that courts have the same authority to order relief against third parties in arbitration as they do in court litigation.

What test applies to worldwide freezing orders in arbitration?

The expanded jurisdiction does not mean that third-party freezing orders will be granted as a matter of course. Applicants must still satisfy the well-established WFO criteria:

•     A good arguable case (or serious issue to be tried, following Dos Santos v Unitel)

•     A real risk of dissipation of assets

•     That it is just and convenient to grant the relief sought

Courts will also scrutinise the connection between the non-party and the dissipation risk. The fact that assets are held by a related entity will not be sufficient on its own; applicants should be prepared to demonstrate the link between the third party and the respondent's conduct.

When might third-party freezing orders be used in arbitration?

The practical significance of the amendment is best illustrated by the situations it was designed to address.

1.  Group Structure Dissipation

Where a respondent moves assets to a parent company, subsidiary, or other group entity, English courts can now freeze those assets within the same section 44 application. This is particularly significant in disputes involving corporate groups where the nominal respondent has limited assets in its own name.

2.  Non-Party Trustees and Escrow Holders

Where assets are held by a fiduciary, whether a trustee, escrow agent, or other custodian, pending the outcome of proceedings, a WFO can now reach that party directly. This closes a significant enforcement gap, particularly in disputes involving offshore trusts and structured finance arrangements.

3.  Controlling Individuals Behind Offshore Entities

If the individual who ultimately controls the respondent holds personal assets in England, those assets are now potentially within reach even if that person is not a named party to the arbitration. For international commercial disputes where enforcement has historically been frustrated by layers of offshore structuring, this is a significant development.

Why does the Arbitration Act 2025 strengthen London as an arbitral seat?

One of the less-discussed but important features of the new regime is its jurisdictional simplicity. Unlike applications under section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982,which applies to foreign proceedings and requires an additional English connection, a section 44 application requires nothing more than an English seat of arbitration.

This makes London materially more attractive as a seat where asset protection and emergency relief may be required. The reform gives parties to London-seated arbitration a clearer route to interim relief against non-parties, without needing to commence separate proceedings simply to preserve assets.

Our recent article on London arbitration and the finality of arbitration awards, considered the English courts’ restrained but supportive approach to arbitration and award challenges.            

What practical steps should parties take in London-seated arbitration?

The reforms apply to arbitrations commenced on or after 1 August 2025. If you are involved in proceedings commenced after that date, or are anticipating a dispute, there are several immediate considerations.

·      Act early. Asset transfers to connected parties often accelerate once a dispute becomes apparent. Applications for emergency relief should be contemplated at the outset, not as an afterthought.

·      Map the structure. Before proceedings are commenced, identify the full network of connected entities, individuals, and asset-holders. The strength of a section 44 application against a third party will depend in part on how clearly that connection can be articulated to the court.

·      Prepare evidence of dissipation risk. Courts will not grant third-party freezing orders without proper evidence of a real risk that assets will be moved. Commercial intelligence and financial analysis should be assembled in parallel with legal strategy.

·      Coordinate across jurisdictions. English WFOs remain a key component of multi-jurisdictional asset freezing. The expanded scope of section 44 makes early coordination with offshore counsel more important than ever.

·      Consider the seat carefully. For future contracts, London's enhanced section 44 jurisdiction is a tangible benefit that should be weighed alongside other arbitral seat considerations.

Where an award has already been obtained, read our recent article on enforcing arbitration awards with final charging orders.

Barnes Law’s Arbitration team advises clients on interim relief, worldwide freezing orders, third-party asset protection, enforcement strategy and London-seated arbitration disputes.

Written by Barnes Law Managing Partner Yulia Barnes.