Post-judgment worldwide freezing injunction continued at return date, with important guidance on the ordinary course of business exception

02/06/26

On 27 May 2026, the Commercial Court (Paul Mitchell KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) handed down judgment continuing a post-judgment Worldwide Freezing Order (the “WFO”). The judgment provides important guidance on the “ordinary course of business” exception in the model order for a freezing injunction.

The underlying judgment arose out of Just-Us Air SRL’s (“Just Us”) counterclaim against Fibula Air Travel SRL (“Fibula”) under an aircraft “wet lease”. By that judgment on 12 December 2025 ([2025] EWHC 3259 (Comm) and news item here), the Commercial Court upheld payment provisions notwithstanding that, as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, the aircraft was never operated and the necessary regulatory approvals for operations were never obtained. Just Us was awarded EUR 5,710,851.46 and costs.

At a consequentials hearing on 9 March 2026, an application for a stay of enforcement was refused and Fibula ordered to make payment into Court pending its application for permission to appeal. No such payment was made and, in a renewed stay application to the Court of Appeal, Fibula alleged (inter alia) that its appeal would be stifled if the stay application were refused and that its former solicitors had acted without instructions in relation to the payment into Court.

On 29 April 2026, Just Us applied for a post-judgment WFO, which was granted at an ex parte hearing on 1 May 2026. On 5 May 2026, Foxton LJ granted Fibula permission to appeal on two of four grounds, and refused the renewed stay application.

At the return date on 22 May 2026, the WFO was continued. The Judge found that the evidence strongly suggested “that Fibula is not being transparent regarding its finances, might not be telling the truth regarding the advice it received from its former lawyers, and has deliberately taken steps to prefer a connected party creditor over its judgment credit”: [61]. This amounted to solid evidence of a risk of unjustified dissipation by Fibula of its assets, with the intention that its money should not be available to satisfy the judgment sum.

Whilst the WFO granted at the ex parte hearing allowed Fibula to deal with or dispose of its assets in the “ordinary and proper course of business” (an exception contained in the model order, sometimes referred to as the “Angel Bell exception”), this was narrowed at the return date. After reviewing the authorities (at [63]-[71]), the Judge held that he could not ignore the outstanding appeal of the underlying judgment, which might undermine the basis for the WFO: [69]. On the other hand, it could not be right that there were no controls on what Fibula was permitted to do: [70].

In providing important guidance on the applicability of the ordinary course of business exception in a post-judgment context, the Judge ordered that the exception be retained, though subject to notification requirements and an express prohibition that no transfer or disposition be made to certain related parties: [71]-[72]. Fibula was also entitled to spend a reasonable sum on legal advice and representation, though the additional wording in the model order requiring Fibula to disclose the source of those funds was included.

The judgment can be accessed here: [2026] EWHC 1270 (Comm).