——— Commercial Litigation · Brisbane
Mareva Orders and Freezing Order Lawyers Brisbane
A Mareva order, also called a freezing order, is an urgent Court order that restrains dealings with assets where there is a danger that a judgment may otherwise go unsatisfied. Dundas Lawyers advises applicants, respondents and affected third parties in urgent commercial litigation.
$200k+
Minimum dispute
value we advise on
6 – 18mo
Typical litigation
timeframe
📞
Direct Line – Brisbane
——— In short
What is a Mareva order?
A Mareva order, also called a freezing order, is an urgent Court order that restrains a person from removing, disposing of, dealing with or diminishing assets where there is a danger that a judgment may otherwise go unsatisfied. It preserves the Court’s process; it does not give the applicant security over the assets.
Practical tips when assets may be at risk
- Act immediately: delay may undermine urgency.
- Preserve evidence: retain records of asset ownership, transfers and threatened dealings.
- Identify assets: record their value, location and control.
- Prepare the case: gather evidence of the underlying claim and real danger of dissipation.
- Obtain advice early: warning the respondent may defeat the purpose of an application.
On this page
——— Quick summary
Quick summary of Mareva orders
A Mareva order is an extraordinary interlocutory remedy used to protect the administration of justice where there is a danger that a judgment or prospective judgment will be wholly or partly unsatisfied.
- A claimant generally needs a judgment or a good arguable case for substantive relief.
- Objective evidence must show a real danger that assets may be removed, disposed of, dealt with or diminished.
- Applications are often urgent and may be made without notice where warning could defeat the purpose of the order.
- The applicant will ordinarily be required to give an undertaking as to damages.
- Orders should be proportionate and commonly allow reasonable living, legal and ordinary business expenses.
- Applicants, respondents and affected third parties should obtain urgent advice before taking steps that may affect assets or compliance.
——— The order explained
What is a Mareva order?
A Mareva order, freezing order or asset preservation order is an interlocutory injunction intended to prevent the frustration or inhibition of the Court’s process. It may restrain a respondent from removing assets from Australia or disposing of, dealing with or diminishing the value of assets pending judgment.
In plain English, the order preserves assets so that a successful judgment is not rendered ineffective. It is not granted merely because a debt is unpaid, and it does not create a charge or proprietary interest in the respondent’s assets.
——— Eligibility
Who can apply for a Mareva order?
A person with an existing judgment, or a claimant pursuing substantive relief and able to establish a good arguable case, may seek a Mareva order where the relevant Court has jurisdiction. Applications may arise in commercial disputes, fraud claims, debt recovery, shareholder and director disputes, intellectual property proceedings and other litigation involving a risk to assets.
Before applying, it is important to identify the substantive claim, respondent, assets to be restrained, amount reasonably required to protect the prospective judgment and evidence supporting the alleged danger. Delay may affect the availability or practical effectiveness of relief.
——— Legal requirements
Requirements for a Mareva order
The precise requirements depend on the Court and circumstances. In Queensland, an applicant will generally need evidence establishing:
- a judgment or a good arguable case for substantive relief;
- assets against which the order can operate;
- a real danger that the judgment will be wholly or partly unsatisfied because the respondent may abscond or assets may be removed, disposed of, dealt with or diminished;
- that the order is appropriate in the exercise of the Court’s discretion; and
- that the proposed order is proportionate and no broader than reasonably necessary.
Suspicion, financial difficulty or non-payment alone may be insufficient. The evidence should identify objective facts showing a real danger to the Court’s process and distinguish genuine dissipation risk from ordinary commercial dealings.
Evidence commonly considered
- Asset ownership and control records
- Recent or threatened transfers
- Statements about moving or hiding assets
- Corporate, banking and property records
- Evidence relevant to proportionality and balance of convenience
——— Available relief
Orders the Court may make
If the requirements are met, the Court may make a freezing order and supporting ancillary orders. The amount restrained should ordinarily be no greater than reasonably required to protect the likely maximum claim, interest and costs.
Freezing assets
Restraining the removal, disposal, dealing with or diminution of assets up to a stated value.
Asset disclosure
Requiring the respondent to disclose the nature, value and location of relevant assets.
Third-party orders
Binding a bank or other person who holds, controls or has power over relevant assets in appropriate circumstances.
Domestic or worldwide orders
Applying to assets in Australia or, in appropriate cases, assets located outside Australia.
Delivery-up and ancillary orders
Requiring specified assets or documents to be delivered up and making supporting orders needed for effective administration.
Permitted expenses
Allowing reasonable living and legal expenses and dealings in the ordinary and proper course of business, subject to the order’s terms.
——— Urgent procedure
Can a Mareva order be made without notice?
Yes. A freezing order may be sought without notice where warning the respondent may create the very risk the application is intended to prevent. Because the respondent is not initially heard, the applicant must make full and frank disclosure of all material matters, including known weaknesses, possible defences and facts adverse to the application.
An order made without notice is usually short in duration and returnable promptly. At the return hearing, the respondent may oppose continuation, seek variation or apply for discharge. Urgent return dates and liberty to apply help protect the respondent.
——— Applicant risk
What is an undertaking as to damages?
The Court will ordinarily require the applicant to give the usual undertaking as to damages. This means the applicant may be required to compensate a respondent or affected third party if the Court later determines that the freezing order should not have been made and loss was caused by it.
Compensation is not automatic and depends on a later Court order. Depending on the applicant’s financial position and the potential impact of the order, security may also be required to support the undertaking.
Need urgent advice about a Mareva order?
Speak with Dundas Lawyers before assets are moved or the Court’s process is affected. We advise on urgent applications, asset disclosure, undertakings, third-party orders and applications to vary or discharge existing orders.
——— Third parties
Can a freezing order be made against a third party?
In appropriate circumstances, a freezing or ancillary order may be made against a non-party who holds, controls, possesses or has a power of disposition over assets relevant to a prospective judgment. A third-party order is exceptional and requires careful evidence connecting that person to the assets and demonstrating the relevant danger.
Banks and other persons notified of an order must take care not to assist or permit a breach. However, legitimate third-party rights should be protected by the wording and scope of the order. A relationship with the respondent alone does not automatically justify restraint.
——— Respondent action
What should you do if served with a freezing order?
Obtain urgent legal advice and comply with the order unless and until it is varied or discharged. Review the assets covered, permitted expenditure, disclosure obligations, return date and consequences of non-compliance. Breach may constitute contempt of Court.
A respondent may apply urgently to vary or discharge the order, challenge the evidence or legal basis, seek additional allowances for living, legal or business expenses, or propose alternative protection for the applicant’s claim.
——— Examples and authorities
Examples and case law about Mareva orders
Further reading
Key authorities
- Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Huang [2021] HCA 43 — considered worldwide freezing orders and the Federal Court’s jurisdiction.
- Cardile v LED Builders Pty Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 380 — addressed freezing relief involving third parties.
- Pankhurst v Damata [2008] QSC 28 — considered Queensland principles relevant to freezing relief.
——— Key takeaways
Key takeaways about Mareva orders
- A Mareva order is an extraordinary interim remedy designed to protect the Court’s process, not to secure a debt.
- An applicant generally needs a good arguable case and objective evidence of a real danger that assets may become unavailable to satisfy a judgment.
- Applications are often urgent and may be made without notice, attracting strict disclosure obligations.
- Applicants usually give an undertaking as to damages, and respondents may urgently seek to vary or discharge the order.
- Orders can extend to asset disclosure, third parties and, in appropriate cases, assets outside Australia.
——— Our approach
Our approach to Mareva order matters
Dundas Lawyers combines commercial litigation experience with urgent, evidence-focused case preparation. We help clients assess whether the legal threshold is met, identify and preserve evidence about assets, frame proportionate orders and manage the practical risks of undertakings, disclosure and third-party impact.
We use our Uncommon Nous® to pursue or resist freezing orders through urgent Court applications, negotiated protections and strategically focused litigation. We do not guarantee outcomes; instead, we provide clear advice about evidence, procedure, risk and commercial options.
How we assist
- Rapid preliminary assessment
- Evidence preservation and analysis
- Proportionate order drafting
- Without-notice applications and return hearings
- Variation, discharge and negotiated protections
——— Frequently asked questions
Mareva orders: common questions
What is a Mareva order?
A Mareva order, also known as a freezing order, restrains dealings with assets to prevent a judgment or prospective judgment from being frustrated.
Is a Mareva order the same as security for a debt?
No. Its purpose is to protect the Court’s process, not to give the applicant priority or security over the respondent’s assets.
What must be proved to obtain a freezing order?
An applicant generally needs a good arguable case and evidence of a real danger that a judgment may go unsatisfied because assets may be removed, disposed of, dealt with or diminished.
Can a Mareva order be made without notice?
Yes, where notice may defeat the purpose of the application. The applicant must make full and frank disclosure, and the matter usually returns to Court promptly.
Can a freezing order apply to overseas assets?
In appropriate cases, a Court may make a worldwide freezing order, although jurisdiction, enforcement, comity and proportionality require careful consideration.
Can a Mareva order affect a bank or third party?
Yes. A person notified of the order may be restrained from assisting dealings with covered assets, and a separate order may be made against a non-party in appropriate circumstances.
What expenses are normally allowed?
Orders commonly permit reasonable living and legal expenses and dealings in the ordinary and proper course of business, subject to the precise terms.
Can a freezing order be challenged?
Yes. A respondent may apply urgently to vary or discharge the order and challenge the evidence, legal basis, scope or proportionality of the relief.
——— Legislation and guidance
Relevant legislation and Court guidance
The principal procedural sources depend on the Court in which relief is sought. Link the items below to current official legislation and Court sources before publication.
- Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), Chapter 8, Part 2, Division 2 — freezing and ancillary orders in Queensland civil proceedings.
- Supreme Court of Queensland Practice Direction 1 of 2007 — usual practice and example form for freezing orders.
- District Court of Queensland Practice Direction 1 of 2007 — freezing-order practice in the District Court.
- Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), Division 7.4 — freezing and ancillary orders in the Federal Court.
- Federal Court Freezing Orders Practice Note (GPN-FRZG) — current practice guidance and example form.
The substantive legislation governing the underlying claim or dispute will also be relevant. Verify the current version and date of each source during legal review.
Contact Dundas Lawyers About a Mareva Order
Call our office or complete the enquiry form if you need urgent advice about applying for, responding to, varying or discharging a Mareva order or freezing order. A member of our team will review your enquiry and contact you about the next practical steps.
or email us at service@dundaslawyers.com.au
Mareva order and freezing order enquiry
