Court of Appeal Clarifies Interpretation of Foreign Freezing Injunctions in GFH Capital Limited v David Lawrence Haigh & Ors

Citation: [2024] EWCA Civ 65
Judgment on


The case of GFH Capital Limited v David Lawrence Haigh & Ors presents important jurisprudence regarding the interpretation of court orders, specifically freezing injunctions in support of foreign proceedings. The case surfaces the complexities involved in interpreting the continuation period of domestic freezing injunctions predicated on foreign claims and the associated jurisdictional implications.

Key Facts

The dispute hinges on a freezing injunction ordered against Mr. Haigh supporting GFH Capital Limited’s (GFH) proceedings in the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) courts. The concern was whether the English injunction, initially granted without notice by Males J and later varied by Flaux J, ceased upon the “disposal of the Claim” in the context of DIFC proceedings or whether it continued until the Part 8 claim in the English court was formally concluded.

The appeal was made against the determination of Andrew Baker J that the injunction expired upon the conclusion of the DIFC proceedings, leading to a debate over the correct interpretation of the term “the Claim” within the injunctive order.

The legal principles applied in the case revolve around four main areas:

Interpretation of Court Orders

The premise of the case rested on understanding what is meant by “until the disposal of the Claim” within the context of the freezing order. The judgment relied on the principle of reading such orders strictly and seeking a clear, unambiguous interpretation to avoid penal consequences for non-compliance, as outlined in JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov (No 10).

Role of Supporting Claims under Section 25

This case assessed the secondary nature of an English freezing injunction under Section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 in support of substantive claims in foreign courts. Recognition is given to the supporting role of English court orders where the primary proceedings are conducted in another jurisdiction.

Certainty Principle

The principle of certainty was key, highlighting that an injunctive order must be clear in terms of its duration and the events that may lead to its discontinuation. The case demonstrates how such certainty is required to serve the enforcement principle, which is the underlying purpose of a freezing order.

Costs in the Claim

Another legal principle discussed related to costs is that an English freezing injunction cannot direct costs concerning foreign litigation but can assign costs in relation to the English Part 8 claim to which it is associated.


The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The majority concluded that “the Claim” referred to the DIFC proceedings, and thus the injunction ended upon the disposal of said foreign proceedings. Crucially, the interpretation was underpinned by the language of the order itself, its context, the procedural history, and the enforcement principle crucial to freezing orders. Arnold LJ offered a dissenting judgment, arguing that “the Claim” referred to the English claim, positing that an order’s reference to costs and the associated enforcement principles favored this interpretation.


GFH Capital Limited v David Lawrence Haigh & Ors is a pivotal case that accentuates the cruciality of precise drafting in court orders, particularly when transnational elements are involved. The judicial discourse epitomizes the necessity of construing the wording of injunctions and similar orders in their immediate context while maintaining congruity with overarching legal principles. This judgment reaffirms that, for the purpose of avoiding unintended legal consequences and ensuring enforceability, clarity in defining the timeframe and scope of court orders is paramount.

Related Summaries