Extract to table

As set out in Ninemia Maritime Corporation v Trave Schiffahrtsgesellschaft mbH & Co KG (The Niedersachsen) [1983] 1 WLR 1412 and the substantial body of subsequent authority, the Court must be satisfied of three matters before granting freezing relief: (a) Good arguable case

The risk must be a real risk, assessed objectively on the basis of solid evidence, but the court should not require proof to the standard of the balance of probabilities

The first requirement for the grant of a WFO is that the applicant must demonstrate a good arguable case on the substantive claim

The risk of dissipation must be assessed objectively on the basis of solid evidence

As stated by Burton J in Congentra AG v Sixteen Thirteen Marine SA (The Nicholas M) [2008] EWHC 1615 (Comm), the court must be satisfied on the evidence that there is a real risk, not merely a theoretical or fanciful one, that the defendant will take steps to frustrate enforcement

As the Court of Appeal emphasised in Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd v Morimoto [2019] EWCA Civ 2203, the court must adopt a realistic and practical approach to the assessment of dissipation risk