Freezing order Definition

GLOSSARY

Published by a ��Ӱ�� Pensions expert

What does Freezing order mean?

The pensions regulator can issue a freezing order when it is considering winding up a defined benefit scheme. It must be satisfied that it is necessary for member protection and that there is an immediate risk to the interests of the members or the assets of the scheme. The effect of a freezing order is that benefits cease to accrue and the scheme cannot be wound up (except by order of the Pensions Regulator).

Other conditions may also be included eg no new members may be admitted, or no transfers may be made. It will normally last for three months but it can be extended by the Pensions Regulator for up to six months.

View the related checklists about Freezing order

Responding to a freezing injunction—checklist

Responding to a freezing injunction—checklist This Checklist provides a suggested approach for dealing with and responding to a freezing injunction. It is intended as a starting point, listing various key matters which you should consider when preparing your client’s response. It is assumed that: • the freezing injunction was granted pre-action and without notice, and • your client is the defendant in the underlying substantive claim For further guidance on freezing injunctions generally, see Practice Notes: • Freezing injunctions—guiding principles • Freezing injunctions—the application • Freezing injunctions—the draft order Ensuring you have all the necessary documentation The applicant should have provided the following documentation (at the very least): • the application notice • the affidavit(s) in support • the sealed order • a transcript of the hearing • the skeleton argument (if one was used at the hearing) If any of the above documents are missing, ask the applicant’s solicitors for them as a matter of urgency. You will need all of the documents relied upon at the without notice...

Considerations and next steps for victims of fraud—checklist

Considerations and next steps for victims of fraud—checklist This Checklist is designed to assist individuals and companies who suspect they have been a victim of fraud. It considers the immediate steps they should take to gather and preserve evidence, obtain legal advice, mitigate and reduce risk and obtain emergency or urgent relief (such as freezing orders and insurance cover), including whether it is necessary to report a suspected fraud to the police and how to do so using the Action Fraud service. It also addresses the choice between issuing civil and criminal proceedings for fraud and explains the possibility of running a civil fraud claim in parallel with a criminal prosecution (private or public). This Checklist should be read in conjunction with the Practice Notes: • Starting a civil fraud claim—a practical guide • Civil fraud—heads of claim • Civil fraud—frequently asked questions (FAQ) • Commencing criminal proceedings—applying for the issue of a summons • Fraud—civil claim and private criminal prosecution compared For full guidance on fraud offence under criminal...

Winding up an occupational pension scheme—the Pensions Regulator’s powers

The Pensions Regulator has a number of powers under the Pensions Act 1995 (PA 1995) in relation to the winding up of occupational pension schemes. These include:•the power to wind up schemes (under the PA 1995, s 11)•the power to issue a modification order to enable the distribution of surplus assets on winding up (under the PA 1995, s 69)•the power to issue a modification order with a view to ensuring that a scheme is properly wound up (under the PA 1995, s 71A)•the power to give a direction to facilitate winding up (under the PA 1995, s 72B)Powers to wind up schemes (section 11 orders)Under section 11 of the PA 1995, the Pensions Regulator may, by order (a ‘section 11 order’), direct or authorise an occupational pension scheme to be wound up if it is satisfied that:•the scheme, or any part of it, ought to be replaced by a different scheme (under the PA 1995, s 11(1)(a))•the scheme is no longer required (under the PA 1995, s 11(1)(b)), or•it...

Witness evidence—inferences about absent witnesses

Witness evidence—inferences about absent witnesses Proving an assertion The proof of an assertion made in a statement of case is usually done by accepted or unchallenged documentary evidence disclosed in the course of the case, or by oral evidence given at trial that withstands cross-examination, or a combination of these. Unless direct evidence in one of these ways is led at trial, the assertion will remain unproved. To prove less significant allegations, hearsay evidence may be put forward. Being untested by cross-examination, the weight given to hearsay statements tends to be limited; this is always a matter for the trial judge’s evaluation. Judges are conscious of the degree to which witnesses’ recollections can fade or be affected by their involvement in litigation. That explains why a judge will place such store by contemporaneous documentary evidence. In Re Mumtaz Properties Arden LJ said: ‘In my judgment, contemporaneous written documentation is of the very greatest importance in assessing credibility [of a witness of fact]. Moreover, it can be significant not only...

Discover our 273 Practice Notes on Freezing order

Personal data sharing agreement—independent controllers—one-way

Personal data sharing agreement—independent controllers—one-way This Agreement is made on [date] Parties 1 [insert name of disclosing party] [of OR a company incorporated in [England and Wales] under number [insert registered number] whose registered office is at] [insert address] (Disclosing Party), and 2 [insert name of receiving party] [of OR a company incorporated in [England and Wales] under number [insert registered number] whose registered office is at] [insert address] (Receiving Party), (each of the Disclosing Party and the Receiving Party being a party and together the Disclosing Party and the Receiving Party are the parties). Background (A) The parties have identified a requirement to share the Shared Data for the Permitted Purpose. (B) The parties have decided to create a framework for the [systematic OR ad-hoc OR one-off] sharing of the Shared Data, which is likely to require sharing of the Shared Personal Data. (C) The Disclosing Party considers that it may share the Shared Personal Data with the Receiving Party on the legal...

Systems integration agreement—pro-supplier

Systems integration agreement—pro-supplier This AgrEement is made on [date] Parties 1 [insert name of supplier], a company incorporated in [England and Wales] under number [insert registered number] whose registered office is at [insert address] (Supplier); and 2 [insert name of customer], a company incorporated in [England and Wales] under number [insert registered number] whose registered office is at [insert address] (Customer) (each of the Supplier and the Customer being a party and together the Supplier and the Customer are the parties). Background (A) The Customer wishes to procure software, [hardware], software configuration and development services, installation services and other related services. (B) The Customer has agreed to procure the Services from the Supplier and the Supplier has agreed to provide the Services to the Customer on the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The parties agree as follows: 1 Definitions and Interpretation 1.1 In this Agreement the following terms have the following meanings: Acceptance • means that: (a) the Customer confirms in writing that the...

Dive into our 112 Precedents related to Freezing order

Can an application under section 37 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 for a freezing order be made after a final order has been granted?

Can an application under section 37 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 for a freezing order be made after a final order has been granted? Section 37 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) is a powerful weapon. It enables the court to restrain a proposed disposition of an asset, or to set aside a disposition of an asset. As a result, a party who seeks to, for example, transfer property to a family member with a view to it falling outside of the matrimonial pot can be thwarted by the operation of the section. The disposition must be made with the intention of defeating the claim of a spouse for financial relief, which is a high bar; however pursuant to MCA 1973, s 37(5), this intention is presumed (though the presumption is rebuttable) where the disposition was made within three years of the date of the application to set aside the disposition. The section does not apply to dispositions made for valuable consideration to a bona fide third...

Can an order be made to freeze pension assets to stop them being drawn down? If so, is there a difference in the approach to a public service pension when compared with a private pension?

Can an order be made to freeze pension assets to stop them being drawn down? If so, is there a difference in the approach to a public service pension when compared with a private pension? Pension sharing orders are within the categories of financial relief in respect of which an application may be made for an avoidance of disposition order (section 37 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) as amended by paragraph 9, Schedule 3 to the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999, which inserted reference to MCA 1973, s 24B). Examples of when such an order might be required might include the prevention of a transfer of a pension arrangement into a pension arrangement which is already subject to a prior pension attachment order (so as to prevent pension sharing) or into a pension arrangement in a foreign jurisdiction, against which a pension sharing order could not be made by a court in England and Wales. Another important instance of when an avoidance of disposition order might...

See the 26 Q&As about Freezing order

Restructuring & Insolvency weekly highlights—14 November 2024

This week's edition of Restructuring & Insolvency weekly highlights includes: an analysis of the test to be applied when ascertaining an individual’s centre of main interests (‘COMI’) for the purpose of opening insolvency proceedings under the EU Recast Regulation on Insolvency (DL v Land Berlin), a look at a decision to extend freezing orders obtained ex parte under sections 212–213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (Piacqudio v Sparkes), plus a round-up of other news and cases for restructuring and insolvency professionals.

Resisting the continuation of a freezing order—heeding the principles and avoiding criticism (Piacqudio and another v Sparkes and others)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The applicant liquidators had obtained freezing orders at an ex parte hearing in furtherance of their claim under sections 212 and 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) in respect of an alleged fraudulent art investment scheme. The Chancellor of the High Court had to decide whether to continue the orders. Following a three-day interlocutory hearing, the Chancellor set out the well-known principles and authorities relevant to the grant and continuation of a freezing order and held that the applicants had a good arguable case on the merits, that there was a risk of dissipation, and that there had not been a failure of full and frank disclosure. The Chancellor was critical of certain aspects of the first respondent’s approach, in particular, the first respondent had made the hearing like a mini trial, had taken every point including those that could not be resolved at an interlocutory hearing, and had showed a lack of proportion and restraint in respect of the full and frank disclosure...

Read the latest 728 News articles on Freezing order

Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.

Case studies

"The forms and precedents section is essential so that I can quickly and easily look up provisions to include in templates or bespoke project contracts."

RWE

Access all documents on Freezing order

GET ACCESS NOW

Top

Trial

��Ӱ��

GLOSSARY