NOTE 20:  ADD: Although in the overwhelming majority of cases freezing orders are sought and obtained against the very defendants from whom the claimant seeks monetary compensation in the existing (or contemplated) proceedings, it is well established that such orders may also be made against persons in relation to whom the claimant asserts no cause of action and seeks no money judgment but in relation to whom there is an arguable case that assets held in their name (or under their control) are in truth beneficially owned by the defendant against whom the claim is made:  see H.M. Revenue & Customs v Egleton [2006] EWHC 2313 (Ch) at [12], citing TSB Private Bank International S.A. v Chabra [1992] 1 W.L.R. 231.  A freezing injunction may even be granted in some proceedings that do not directly involve a money claim, such as s.459 of the Companies Act 1985 (see Re Premier Electronics (GB) Ltd 2002] 2 B.C.L.C. 634), and winding-up proceedings (see H.M. Revenue & Customs v Egleton [2006] EWHC 2313 (Ch)); and, it would seem, the other circumstances suggested by the Australian High Court in Cardile v LED Builders PTY Ltd [1999] H.C.A. 18:  see the Egleton case at [42] per Briggs J.  However, an application for a freezing order made in the context of winding-up proceedings should, save in exceptional cases, be brought by a provisional liquidator and not by a petitioning (or supporting) creditor:  H.M. Revenue & Customs v Egleton [2006] EWHC 2313 (Ch) at [48]-[51] per Briggs J.

NOTE 22:  REPLACE with the following:  Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, s.25(1) (as amended); Republic of Haiti v. Duvalier [1990] 1 Q.B. 202; X. v. Y and another [1990] 1 Q.B. 220.  By the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Order (SI 2001/3929), s.25(1) of the 1982 Act now applies not only to states which are party to the Brussels and Lugano Conventions, but also to any country other than the U.K. which is a "Regulation State" (ie a member state of the E.U. other than Denmark).  Arbitration claims are not "proceedings" for the purposes of s.25(1):  see ETI Euro Telecom N.V. v Republic of Bolivia [2008] EWHC 1689 (C0mm), at [22]-[25].