Freezing Orders in Cyprus: Mareva, Worldwide and Chabra Orders Under CPR Part 25

Without-Notice Applications, Full and Frank Disclosure and the Return Date

Notice would often defeat the point of the application, so most freezing orders are first sought without notice (ex parte). Under rule 25.3 and section 9 of the Civil Procedure Law, Cap. 6, the court may hear an application without notice only where the matter is urgent or other special circumstances exist. The affidavit must explain why notice was not given (rules 25.3(3) and 25.6(3)).

The respondent is absent, so the applicant carries a duty of full and frank disclosure. Rule 25.6(2) requires the evidence to set out all material facts the court should know. That includes facts that help the respondent, such as possible defences, delay and settlement talks. Material non-disclosure is the most common reason a freezing order is later discharged, even where the claim itself is strong.

An order made without notice must name a return date, at which the respondent can attend and be heard (rule 25.7(1)(β)). The order must state how long it lasts: until judgment, until further order, or until a set date or event (rule 25.7(3)).

Unless the court orders otherwise, every interim order contains the applicant's undertaking in damages (rule 25.7(1)(α)). If the court later finds the order caused the respondent loss, the applicant pays. The court may extend that undertaking to third parties (rule 25.7(2)). Form II also provides for the undertaking to be backed by security, for example a bank guarantee. An applicant with no assets in Cyprus should expect to provide it.

Worldwide Freezing Orders and Asset Disclosure

Cyprus courts can freeze assets anywhere in the world. The Supreme Court confirmed this in Seamark Consultancy Services Ltd v Lasala (2007) 1 ΑΑΔ 162, holding that section 32 contains no territorial restriction beyond its three conditions. The 2023 Rules now write the worldwide form into rule 25.1(1)(ε)(ii) and Form II.

Form II protects third parties abroad. Outside Cyprus, a worldwide order binds the respondent and its officers or agents. It also binds persons subject to the Cyprus court's jurisdiction who were given written notice in Cyprus and can prevent the breach abroad. It binds anyone else only once a local court declares it enforceable or enforces it. In practice, it is often the first step towards recognition in each country where assets are found.

A freezing order usually comes with an order to disclose assets. Form II requires the respondent to list its assets on affidavit within a set time. The list covers assets inside and outside Cyprus, with their value, location and details. The Court of Appeal in Mints v Shishkin (Civil Appeal E69/20, 10 January 2024) described worldwide disclosure orders as ancillary. They let the claimant check that the freezing order is being obeyed.

Chabra Orders, Banks and Other Third Parties

Assets are often held by someone the claimant has no claim against: a company in the respondent's group, a nominee, or a trustee. A Chabra order extends the freeze to that third party. Cyprus courts grant it where there is good reason to believe the third party holds assets that the main respondent beneficially owns or controls. Those assets must be reachable to satisfy a judgment against the respondent. The applicant must also show a risk of dissipation. The third party should be joined to the proceedings.

Banks and other holders of the assets are bound once they know of the order. Form II carries a penal notice. A respondent who disobeys may be held in contempt of court and imprisoned, fined or have its assets sequestrated. Any other person who knowingly helps or allows a breach faces the same exposure. So the first step after an order is made is to serve it on the banks and service providers holding the assets. Form II makes the applicant pay their reasonable costs of complying.

Sometimes the claimant does not yet know where the money went. A freezing order can then be paired with disclosure relief against third parties. Examples are Norwich Pharmacal orders against those caught up in the wrongdoing, and orders tracing funds through banks. Rule 25.1(1)(ι) adds a disclosure or inspection order against a non-party in existing proceedings. These orders need a defined purpose. Cyprus courts will not allow a fishing exercise.

Freezing Orders in Aid of Foreign Proceedings and Arbitration

The main claim does not have to be heard in Cyprus. Rule 25.4(1)(α), as amended on 26 July 2024, applies Part 25 to applications made in relation to court proceedings taking place, or to take place, outside Cyprus. It also covers arbitral proceedings taking place, or to take place, in Cyprus or abroad. Alongside it sit Article 35 of the Brussels Ia Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 for proceedings in other EU Member States, Article 31 of the Lugano Convention 2007, and section 9 of Law 101/1987 for international arbitration.

The Supreme Court has tightened the procedure. In Civil Application No. 240/2025 (30 June 2026), it quashed by certiorari an ex parte order that the Limassol District Court had made in support of intended Liechtenstein proceedings. The order had given no directions for those proceedings to be commenced. Rule 25.2(3) requires such directions whenever the court grants interim relief before proceedings start. The Supreme Court held that this applies equally to proceedings abroad. A vague undertaking is not enough. The court treated the omission as a defect of jurisdiction, which later filing abroad cannot cure.

The lesson for foreign counsel: ask for a direction with a fixed deadline for starting the foreign claim, and meet it. For bank accounts in other Member States, the European Account Preservation Order (Regulation (EU) No 655/2014) is an alternative worth weighing alongside a Cyprus freezing order. Once a foreign judgment or award exists, the freezing order usually runs alongside recognition; see enforcement of foreign judgments in Cyprus and enforcing foreign arbitral awards in Cyprus.