In cross-border arbitration, obtaining a favourable award is only part of the process. Where there is a risk that the respondent may dispose of, transfer or conceal assets before the proceedings are concluded, the claimant must also consider whether steps should be taken to preserve the practical effectiveness of any future award.
This issue is particularly important where the arbitration and the respondent's assets are located in different jurisdictions. A dispute may, for example, be subject to English law and London-seated arbitration, while the respondent and its principal assets are located in Türkiye. In such circumstances, interim relief available from arbitral tribunals and national courts may play a significant role in the overall dispute strategy.
Both English and Turkish law provide mechanisms through which parties to arbitration may seek interim protection. The appropriate remedy will depend on the circumstances of the case, including the nature and location of the assets, the applicable arbitration rules, the urgency of the application and the evidence demonstrating a risk of dissipation.
Interim Relief under English Law
Under section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996, the courts of England and Wales have powers to grant various forms of interim relief in support of arbitral proceedings. These include orders relating to the preservation of evidence or property, interim injunctions and the appointment of receivers.
The Arbitration Act 2025 has further developed this framework, including by clarifying the circumstances in which section 44 powers may be exercised against third parties and strengthening the statutory position concerning emergency arbitrators.
For parties concerned about asset dissipation, one of the most significant remedies available under English law is the freezing injunction.
A freezing injunction restricts a respondent from disposing of or dealing with assets up to a specified value pending the determination of the underlying dispute. In appropriate cases, the English courts may grant a worldwide freezing order extending to assets situated outside England and Wales.
The remedy is exceptional and is not intended to provide a claimant with security merely because there is a possibility that the respondent may ultimately be unable to satisfy an award. The applicant must establish the applicable legal requirements, including a good arguable case and a real risk that assets may be unjustifiably dissipated so that enforcement of a future award would be impaired.
Accordingly, evidence of ordinary commercial transactions, financial difficulties or corporate restructuring will not necessarily be sufficient. The court will consider whether the available evidence demonstrates an objectively established risk of unjustified dissipation.
English courts have also granted freezing relief in support of international arbitration. In Madison Pacific Trust Limited v Groza and Naumenko, for example, the Commercial Court considered a worldwide freezing injunction in circumstances where the substantive claims were being pursued in arbitration and assessed whether there was a sufficient risk that assets might be dissipated before an eventual award could be enforced.
Urgent and Without-Notice Applications
Where there is a genuine risk that giving notice of an application would enable the respondent to move the relevant assets before relief can be granted, an application for a freezing injunction may, in appropriate circumstances, be made without notice.
Such applications are subject to particularly stringent procedural obligations. An applicant seeking relief without notice must make full and frank disclosure of all material matters to the court, including matters that may support the respondent's position.
The need for urgency therefore does not reduce the importance of evidential preparation. Where asset dissipation is suspected, relevant evidence should be identified and preserved promptly. This may include corporate records, information concerning proposed disposals, changes in asset ownership, transfers within corporate groups and communications concerning the treatment of particular assets.
The Role of Arbitral Tribunals and Emergency Arbitrators
Interim measures may also be available within the arbitral process itself.
Depending on the applicable institutional rules and the terms of the arbitration agreement, the tribunal may have authority to grant interim measures. Where the tribunal has not yet been constituted, certain institutional rules provide for the appointment of an emergency arbitrator.
The Arbitration Act 2025 has reinforced the position of emergency arbitrators under English law, including by facilitating court assistance where a party fails to comply with certain orders made by an emergency arbitrator.
However, the availability of tribunal or emergency-arbitrator relief does not remove the potential need for court intervention. The appropriate forum will depend on the type of relief required, the involvement of third parties and, importantly, the jurisdiction in which the assets are situated.
Interim Protection under Turkish Law
Where assets are located in Türkiye, Turkish interim remedies must be considered alongside the arbitral process.
Article 6 of the Turkish International Arbitration Law No. 4686 expressly provides that a party's application to a court for an interim measure or interim attachment before or during arbitration is not incompatible with the arbitration agreement.
Turkish law distinguishes between interim measures (ihtiyati tedbir) and interim attachment (ihtiyati haciz).
The appropriate remedy depends principally on the nature of the claim and the asset to be protected. Interim measures are generally directed towards preserving rights or the subject matter of the dispute, whereas interim attachment is primarily a protective mechanism for monetary claims.
For claimants pursuing monetary relief in arbitration, interim attachment may therefore be particularly relevant where the statutory requirements are satisfied and assets located in Türkiye need to be preserved against future enforcement.
Limits of the Arbitral Tribunal's Powers in Türkiye
Article 6 of the International Arbitration Law also allows an arbitral tribunal, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, to order interim measures or interim attachment and to require appropriate security.
There are, however, important limitations on the tribunal's powers.
An arbitral tribunal cannot itself impose interim relief that requires enforcement through execution offices or other public authorities, nor can it ordinarily make measures effective against third parties who are not bound by the arbitration agreement.
This distinction is significant in asset-preservation cases. Where effective protection requires compulsory measures against assets, assistance from banks or other third parties, or the exercise of public enforcement powers, an application to the competent Turkish court may be necessary.
The tribunal and the national courts may therefore perform complementary functions. The tribunal determines the substantive dispute between the parties, while national courts may provide coercive interim protection where the requirements of domestic law are satisfied.
London-Seated Arbitration and Assets in Türkiye
The seat of arbitration and the location of the respondent's assets should not be treated as the same jurisdictional question.
A London-seated tribunal may determine the merits of the dispute, while enforcement or interim protection may need to be pursued before the Turkish courts because the respondent's bank accounts, real property, shares or other valuable assets are situated in Türkiye.
In such cases, the claimant should assess at an early stage:
Interim relief should therefore form part of the wider enforcement strategy rather than being considered in isolation.
Risk of Dissipation: Evidence Is Critical
Neither English nor Turkish law permits interim restrictions over assets simply because a claimant is concerned about future recovery.
Courts recognise that freezing or attaching assets may significantly interfere with a party's ordinary commercial activities and property rights. The relevant statutory and procedural thresholds must therefore be established on the evidence.
A distinction should in particular be drawn between a counterparty experiencing ordinary financial or commercial difficulties and a counterparty taking steps that indicate a genuine risk that assets will be placed beyond the reach of enforcement.
For this reason, early investigation and preservation of evidence can be decisive when interim protection is contemplated.
A Coordinated Cross-Border Strategy
International arbitration frequently involves more than one legal system. The governing law of the contract, the law of the seat, the applicable institutional rules and the law of the jurisdiction in which the assets are located may each have a different role.
Where a dispute involves England and Türkiye, an effective strategy may therefore require coordination between the arbitral proceedings and applications for interim relief before national courts.
In cross-border disputes, the appropriate strategy will depend not only on the seat of arbitration but also on the location and nature of the assets, the evidence available and the mechanisms through which an eventual award is expected to be enforced.
Guden Solicitors advises and represents clients in complex cross-border disputes involving English law, including international arbitration, interim measures, asset preservation, and the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. In matters involving both the United Kingdom and Türkiye, we are well placed to coordinate cross-border arbitration and enforcement strategies with Turkish counsel where appropriate.
The Turkish law aspects of this article have been prepared with input from Guden Attorneys at Law, our affiliated Turkish law firm. Guden Solicitors does not advise on Turkish law, and any references to Turkish law in this article are provided for general information purposes only and should not be relied upon as Turkish legal advice.
For advice on Turkish law, including interim measures, interim attachment, enforcement proceedings, or other matters before the Turkish courts, please contact Guden Attorneys at Law directly. For advice on English law or cross-border arbitration matters, please contact Guden Solicitors.
This issue is particularly important where the arbitration and the respondent's assets are located in different jurisdictions. A dispute may, for example, be subject to English law and London-seated arbitration, while the respondent and its principal assets are located in Türkiye. In such circumstances, interim relief available from arbitral tribunals and national courts may play a significant role in the overall dispute strategy.
Both English and Turkish law provide mechanisms through which parties to arbitration may seek interim protection. The appropriate remedy will depend on the circumstances of the case, including the nature and location of the assets, the applicable arbitration rules, the urgency of the application and the evidence demonstrating a risk of dissipation.
Interim Relief under English Law
Under section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996, the courts of England and Wales have powers to grant various forms of interim relief in support of arbitral proceedings. These include orders relating to the preservation of evidence or property, interim injunctions and the appointment of receivers.
The Arbitration Act 2025 has further developed this framework, including by clarifying the circumstances in which section 44 powers may be exercised against third parties and strengthening the statutory position concerning emergency arbitrators.
For parties concerned about asset dissipation, one of the most significant remedies available under English law is the freezing injunction.
A freezing injunction restricts a respondent from disposing of or dealing with assets up to a specified value pending the determination of the underlying dispute. In appropriate cases, the English courts may grant a worldwide freezing order extending to assets situated outside England and Wales.
The remedy is exceptional and is not intended to provide a claimant with security merely because there is a possibility that the respondent may ultimately be unable to satisfy an award. The applicant must establish the applicable legal requirements, including a good arguable case and a real risk that assets may be unjustifiably dissipated so that enforcement of a future award would be impaired.
Accordingly, evidence of ordinary commercial transactions, financial difficulties or corporate restructuring will not necessarily be sufficient. The court will consider whether the available evidence demonstrates an objectively established risk of unjustified dissipation.
English courts have also granted freezing relief in support of international arbitration. In Madison Pacific Trust Limited v Groza and Naumenko, for example, the Commercial Court considered a worldwide freezing injunction in circumstances where the substantive claims were being pursued in arbitration and assessed whether there was a sufficient risk that assets might be dissipated before an eventual award could be enforced.
Urgent and Without-Notice Applications
Where there is a genuine risk that giving notice of an application would enable the respondent to move the relevant assets before relief can be granted, an application for a freezing injunction may, in appropriate circumstances, be made without notice.
Such applications are subject to particularly stringent procedural obligations. An applicant seeking relief without notice must make full and frank disclosure of all material matters to the court, including matters that may support the respondent's position.
The need for urgency therefore does not reduce the importance of evidential preparation. Where asset dissipation is suspected, relevant evidence should be identified and preserved promptly. This may include corporate records, information concerning proposed disposals, changes in asset ownership, transfers within corporate groups and communications concerning the treatment of particular assets.
The Role of Arbitral Tribunals and Emergency Arbitrators
Interim measures may also be available within the arbitral process itself.
Depending on the applicable institutional rules and the terms of the arbitration agreement, the tribunal may have authority to grant interim measures. Where the tribunal has not yet been constituted, certain institutional rules provide for the appointment of an emergency arbitrator.
The Arbitration Act 2025 has reinforced the position of emergency arbitrators under English law, including by facilitating court assistance where a party fails to comply with certain orders made by an emergency arbitrator.
However, the availability of tribunal or emergency-arbitrator relief does not remove the potential need for court intervention. The appropriate forum will depend on the type of relief required, the involvement of third parties and, importantly, the jurisdiction in which the assets are situated.
Interim Protection under Turkish Law
Where assets are located in Türkiye, Turkish interim remedies must be considered alongside the arbitral process.
Article 6 of the Turkish International Arbitration Law No. 4686 expressly provides that a party's application to a court for an interim measure or interim attachment before or during arbitration is not incompatible with the arbitration agreement.
Turkish law distinguishes between interim measures (ihtiyati tedbir) and interim attachment (ihtiyati haciz).
The appropriate remedy depends principally on the nature of the claim and the asset to be protected. Interim measures are generally directed towards preserving rights or the subject matter of the dispute, whereas interim attachment is primarily a protective mechanism for monetary claims.
For claimants pursuing monetary relief in arbitration, interim attachment may therefore be particularly relevant where the statutory requirements are satisfied and assets located in Türkiye need to be preserved against future enforcement.
Limits of the Arbitral Tribunal's Powers in Türkiye
Article 6 of the International Arbitration Law also allows an arbitral tribunal, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, to order interim measures or interim attachment and to require appropriate security.
There are, however, important limitations on the tribunal's powers.
An arbitral tribunal cannot itself impose interim relief that requires enforcement through execution offices or other public authorities, nor can it ordinarily make measures effective against third parties who are not bound by the arbitration agreement.
This distinction is significant in asset-preservation cases. Where effective protection requires compulsory measures against assets, assistance from banks or other third parties, or the exercise of public enforcement powers, an application to the competent Turkish court may be necessary.
The tribunal and the national courts may therefore perform complementary functions. The tribunal determines the substantive dispute between the parties, while national courts may provide coercive interim protection where the requirements of domestic law are satisfied.
London-Seated Arbitration and Assets in Türkiye
The seat of arbitration and the location of the respondent's assets should not be treated as the same jurisdictional question.
A London-seated tribunal may determine the merits of the dispute, while enforcement or interim protection may need to be pursued before the Turkish courts because the respondent's bank accounts, real property, shares or other valuable assets are situated in Türkiye.
In such cases, the claimant should assess at an early stage:
- where the respondent's material assets are located;
- whether those assets are held directly or through related entities;
- whether there is reliable evidence of a risk of dissipation;
- which interim remedy is appropriate in each relevant jurisdiction;
- whether relief should be sought from the tribunal, an emergency arbitrator or a national court; and
- where recognition and enforcement of the final award is ultimately likely to be required.
Interim relief should therefore form part of the wider enforcement strategy rather than being considered in isolation.
Risk of Dissipation: Evidence Is Critical
Neither English nor Turkish law permits interim restrictions over assets simply because a claimant is concerned about future recovery.
Courts recognise that freezing or attaching assets may significantly interfere with a party's ordinary commercial activities and property rights. The relevant statutory and procedural thresholds must therefore be established on the evidence.
A distinction should in particular be drawn between a counterparty experiencing ordinary financial or commercial difficulties and a counterparty taking steps that indicate a genuine risk that assets will be placed beyond the reach of enforcement.
For this reason, early investigation and preservation of evidence can be decisive when interim protection is contemplated.
A Coordinated Cross-Border Strategy
International arbitration frequently involves more than one legal system. The governing law of the contract, the law of the seat, the applicable institutional rules and the law of the jurisdiction in which the assets are located may each have a different role.
Where a dispute involves England and Türkiye, an effective strategy may therefore require coordination between the arbitral proceedings and applications for interim relief before national courts.
In cross-border disputes, the appropriate strategy will depend not only on the seat of arbitration but also on the location and nature of the assets, the evidence available and the mechanisms through which an eventual award is expected to be enforced.
Guden Solicitors advises and represents clients in complex cross-border disputes involving English law, including international arbitration, interim measures, asset preservation, and the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. In matters involving both the United Kingdom and Türkiye, we are well placed to coordinate cross-border arbitration and enforcement strategies with Turkish counsel where appropriate.
The Turkish law aspects of this article have been prepared with input from Guden Attorneys at Law, our affiliated Turkish law firm. Guden Solicitors does not advise on Turkish law, and any references to Turkish law in this article are provided for general information purposes only and should not be relied upon as Turkish legal advice.
For advice on Turkish law, including interim measures, interim attachment, enforcement proceedings, or other matters before the Turkish courts, please contact Guden Attorneys at Law directly. For advice on English law or cross-border arbitration matters, please contact Guden Solicitors.