Freezing orders can be a useful tool for claimants seeking to preserve the defendant's assets until judgment can be enforced. In order to benefit from this equitable remedy, the applicant must show:
a. a good arguable case that it has a good claim;
b. a good arguable case that there is a real risk the respondent will dissipate its assets; and
c. that the respondent has assets that will be captured by the court's order.
It is the third element of this test that has perhaps caused the most uncertainty. However, in the recent case of Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority & others v Bestfort Development & others, the Court of Appeal has clarified this test and explained the standard of proof required to show that the defendant has assets that will be caught in the context of a worldwide freezing order ("WFO").