“From Worldwide to Domestic” – Court of Appeal Clarifies Partial Continuation of Freezing Orders and the Priority of Non-Proprietary Assets for Legal Funding
(Gable Insurance AG v Dewsall & Ors, [2025] EWCA Civ 884)

1. Introduction

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Gable Insurance AG v Dewsall settles several live questions in freezing-order jurisprudence:

• May the court split a worldwide freezing order (“WFO”)—discharging the overseas component for lack of evidence, yet preserving the domestic limb—without a fresh application?
• Where a defendant has given a consent undertaking tied to the standard exceptions for legal expenses, does that undertaking override the Marino line of authority which obliges defendants to exhaust non-proprietary assets first?
• How does the existence (or not) of a proprietary claim affect access to frozen funds for legal fees when the defendant also owns unencumbered assets (e.g., jewellery)?

The appeal arose out of high-value misappropriation proceedings brought by the liquidators of Gable Insurance AG (“GIAG”) against its former CEO, William Dewsall, his wife Judith Dewsall, and associated entities. The specific challenges mounted by Mrs Dewsall concerned:

1. The continuation of an England-and-Wales-only freezing order for £15 million;
2. Restrictions on funding her legal expenses from the £850,000 proceeds of sale of the family home, Weald Hall;
3. Case-management rulings on expert evidence, disposal of jewellery and costs.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal (Asplin, Lewison & Males LJJ) dismissed all five grounds of appeal. Key holdings:

• A judge hearing a WFO return date is entitled to continue the order domestically even when the overseas limb fails—no fresh notice is needed because a worldwide order inherently contains a domestic component.
• Mrs Dewsall’s 2023 undertaking—allowing her to deal with sale proceeds of Weald Hall “consistent with” standard WFO exceptions—does not override the four-stage test in Marino v FMCP. The proprietary nature of GIAG’s claim means she must fund her defence, where possible, from unencumbered jewellery rather than disputed house proceeds.
• Chabra principles did not limit the injunction: Mrs Dewsall faces a proprietary tracing claim, so she is not a “non-cause-of-action” defendant.
• The judge’s robust case-management decisions on expert accountancy evidence, sale protocol for jewellery, and costs were unimpeachable.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Derby & Co v Weldon (No 1) [1990] Ch 48 – Foundation for the “domestic-first” principle in WFOs; relied on to justify retaining domestic relief once overseas relief collapsed.
• Convoy Collateral v Broad Idea [2021] UKPC 24; [2023] AC 389 – Lord Leggatt’s summary of current freezing-order practice (good arguable case + assets to enforce against). Used by both judge and CA to test GIAG’s evidence.
• Marino v FM Capital Partners [2016] EWCA Civ 1301 – Four-stage test for releasing proprietary assets for legal fees; Court applied and reaffirmed.
• Sundt Wrigley (1993); Fitzgerald v Williams [1996] QB 657; Ostrich Farming (1997, CA) – authorities underpinning Marino.
• AB v CD [2023] EWHC 2419 (Ch) (Miles J) – contrasted: there, identical wording in a proprietary and a non-proprietary order was held to allow use of assets for fees. Court here distinguished on facts.
• TSB v Chabra [1992] 1 WLR 231 – “Chabra jurisdiction” analysed; Court emphasised Mrs Dewsall is a substantive defendant.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

1. Partial Continuation of WFO
   • A worldwide order always envelops domestic assets. Failure of the overseas limb does not “infect” the domestic limb.
   • Judge’s jurisdiction flows from Senior Courts Act 1981, s.37(1); no requirement for fresh notice, because the original application necessarily encompassed domestic relief.
   • Risk of dissipation shown through obstructive conduct, undisclosed jewellery and mingling of funds justified £15 m cap.
2. Priority of Non-Proprietary Assets for Legal Fees
   • Undertaking’s reference to paragraph 12 (“reasonable legal expenses”) is subject to proprietary-asset principles unless expressly excluded.
   • Applying Marino: (i) GIAG has good arguable proprietary claim to house proceeds; (ii) Mrs D has arguable defence; (iii) she failed to show inability to use jewellery (non-proprietary); (iv) balance of justice favours preserving house proceeds.
   • Consent undertakings are equivalent to injunctions; they do not lightly displace equitable priorities.
3. Chabra Argument Rejected
   • Because GIAG pleads a proprietary tracing claim into Weald Hall, Mrs D is a direct target; hence normal WFO principles, not Chabra, apply.
4. Case-Management Deference
   • Expert evidence: Earlier CMC order limited forensic accountants to three parties; later PTR rectified position – no prejudice. Appeal moot.
   • Jewellery sale protocol: proportional response to prior concealment; protects both sides; within judge’s wide discretion.
   • Costs: no basis to disturb standard “loser pays” order over disclosure application; appellate restraint emphasised (Abdulle).

3.3 Likely Impact

• Freezing-Order Practice: Affirms that courts may “carve out” viable portions of a WFO instead of an all-or-nothing approach. Applicants will feel less pressure to over-estimate global quantum if domestic relief can survive evidential gaps elsewhere.
• Legal-Funding Disputes: Reinforces Marino as default. Undertakings mirroring standard exceptions will rarely suffice to unlock disputed proprietary assets unless expressly agreed or defendant proves impecuniosity.
• Asset-Mingling Strategies: Warning that deliberate mingling may backfire; courts can infer dissipation risk and broaden injunctive scope.
• Consent Orders: Highlights need for precision when carving out expense exceptions—silence on Marino will be taken as deference to it.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Worldwide Freezing Order (WFO): A court injunction preventing a defendant from dealing with assets anywhere in the world up to a specified value, aimed at preventing dissipation before judgment.
• Domestic Freezing Order: Same relief but limited to assets within England & Wales.
• Proprietary vs. Non-Proprietary Claim: A proprietary claim asserts ownership of specific property; a non-proprietary (personal) claim seeks damages. Proprietary status gives the claimant priority over creditors and limits the defendant’s use of the asset.
• Marino Four-Stage Test: A framework for deciding when a defendant may dip into assets subject to proprietary claims to fund legal or living costs.
• Chabra Jurisdiction: Allows freezing of a third party’s assets when they might satisfy a judgment against the main defendant, even though no substantive claim is pursued against that third party.

5. Conclusion

Gable Insurance AG v Dewsall provides a pragmatic yet principled roadmap for judges faced with multi-jurisdictional freezing orders. Three messages resonate:

1. The court can, and often should, preserve domestic injunctive relief even if the evidence for overseas assets falls away.
2. Consent undertakings that import standard WFO exceptions do not license defendants to tap assets subject to proprietary claims unless the Marino hurdles are cleared.
3. Appellate courts will rarely disturb robust case-management decisions absent clear error.

The judgment will influence drafting of future freezing applications, underscore the need for clear wording in consent orders, and deter defendants from obfuscatory asset-mingling tactics. In an era where global asset-tracing is both easier (data) and harder (complex structures), the Court of Appeal’s balanced approach delivers welcome clarity.