Case Digest No. 13 · Contentious insolvency
Freezing relief, proprietary injunctions and capped cross-undertakings
Re IAHP Group Holdings Ltd; Bucknall v Rizvi [2025] EWHC 2069 (Ch)
The High Court granted worldwide freezing and proprietary injunctions in liquidators’ misfeasance proceedings and considered whether their cross-undertaking in damages should be capped.
High Court (Chancery Division)
[2025] EWHC 2069 (Ch)
August 2025
Decision at a glance
The question, answer and consequence.
- Legal question
- The central issue was freezing relief, proprietary injunctions and capped cross-undertakings.
- Court's answer
- The High Court granted worldwide freezing and proprietary injunctions in liquidators’ misfeasance proceedings and considered whether their cross-undertaking in damages should be capped.
- Practical consequence
- The decision demonstrates how freezing and proprietary relief may be structured alongside a capped cross-undertaking in insolvency litigation. It assists parties evaluating whether urgent protection is both evidentially justified and practically affordable.
Factual background
IAHP Group Holdings Limited (‘the Company’) was the holding company for a group of companies collectively known as the “RDCP Group”. A winding up petition was presented against the Company and the Company was wound up. The Applicants were appointed as provisional liquidators and, subsequently, as full liquidators. The Respondents, husband and wife, were the only acting directors and shareholders at all material times bar one. On the date the winding up petition was presented, the Respondents caused the Company’s name to be changed, files notices at Companies House purporting to terminate their appointments as directors with retroactive effect, and purported to appoint the nanny of their children as a director with retroactive effect. UNDERLYING CLAIM FOR MISFEASANCE S.212 INSOLVENCY ACT 1986 Summary remedy against delinquent directors, liquidators, etc. 1) This section applies if in the course of the winding up of a company it appears that a person who - (a) is or has been an officer of the company, (b) has acted as a liquidator…or administrative receiver of the company, or (c) not being a person falling within paragraph (a) or (b), is or has been concerned, or has taken part, in t
Issue
The central issue was freezing relief, proprietary injunctions and capped cross-undertakings.
Decision and key points
The High Court granted worldwide freezing and proprietary injunctions in liquidators’ misfeasance proceedings and considered whether their cross-undertaking in damages should be capped.
- The High Court granted a worldwide freezing order exceeding £5 million, proprietary relief and an information order.
- The underlying liquidators’ claim was brought under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986.
- On the facts, a capped cross-undertaking in damages of £200,000 provided adequate protection.
Why this decision matters
The decision demonstrates how freezing and proprietary relief may be structured alongside a capped cross-undertaking in insolvency litigation. It assists parties evaluating whether urgent protection is both evidentially justified and practically affordable.
Particularly relevant to: Office-holders, creditors, directors, funders and injunction specialists.