Upon being served with a freezing injunction, a third party recipient is under an obligation to the Court to comply. Therefore, ordinarily, the only remedy against a third party who fails to comply lies in an action for contempt court, not an action for damages.
The High Court in the case of Commissioners of Customs & Excise -v- Barclays Bank Plc [2004] EWHC 122 (Comm) (February) has held that in some circumstances, it might be possible for such a separate duty of care to arise as between the third party and the claimant, allowing the claimant to claim damages against a third party if it fails to comply with the freezing order. A duty may arise if the third party recipient's actions amount to a relevant assumption of responsibility to the claimant; a mere acknowledgment of service is unlikely to be sufficient.
It is quite possible that Banks' standard letters sent on receipt of a freezing order, will indicate a sufficient degree of willingness to comply so as to give rise to a duty to the claimant. If a duty is found to arise, the third party recipient may be exposed for a damages claim if it negligently allows assets, the subject of the order, to be removed.
