While freezing orders are a critical tool in protecting assets, they’re not always required. Alternatives like undertakings (promises to the court) can sometimes provide sufficient assurance without the need for formal court intervention. 

Courts have the discretion to issue freezing orders based on whether it’s fair and appropriate under the circumstances. These orders are enforceable through penalties for non-compliance, including fines, asset seizure, or imprisonment. 

Freezing orders can cover a broad spectrum of assets, from liquid assets like bank accounts to physical assets such as property, vehicles, and even anticipated assets like future legal awards. 

In cases where there’s a risk of assets being moved outside of England and Wales, a worldwide freezing injunction may be sought to prevent asset transfer across borders, ensuring that all assets remain accessible for division or settlement. 

Disregarding a freezing order is a serious offense that can lead to contempt of court, with penalties ranging from fines and asset forfeiture to imprisonment. 

Freezing orders are applied in situations with significant assets or when there’s a breakdown in trust between parties, serving as a crucial measure to protect against the unfair loss of assets. In some scenarios, a less formal agreement, like a letter and undertaking by a spouse, may be an appropriate alternative. 

The decision to grant such an order is based on its fairness and convenience. Freezing orders are initially effective for 7-14 days but can be extended or concluded early, depending on the court’s review of the case’s requirements.