Freezing orders, delay and proprietary injunctions: key lessons from Alliance Petrochemical v Mazzagatti Background The WWFO application The applicable principles The impact of delay API's three new grounds: all rejected The proprietary injunction A BVI perspective Freezing orders in the BVI Practical takeaways for offshore litigators

The English Commercial Court has confirmed that delay in seeking a freezing order and proprietary injunction can be fatal to the application.
In Alliance Petrochemical Investment (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Mazzagatti , the Court refused API's application for a worldwide freezing order (WWFO) and a proprietary injunction after Alliance Petrochemical Investment (Singapore) Pte Ltd (API) waited approximately 17 months to apply and did not produce new evidence of dissipation. The judgment arose from allegations that at least €143 million had been misappropriated from API, a Singapore-incorporated petrochemical company, and its subsidiary, Alliance Petrochemicals Trading LLC (APT).
API alleged that its former CEO, Mr Mazzagatti, and his associate, Mr Dixit, misappropriated at least €143,808,798.66 from API and APT. It said the money was diverted through customer payments, profits routed through Napag IT Limited, and direct withdrawals from API and APT's bank accounts.
API alleged that a substantial portion of the misappropriated funds financed the acquisition of RockRose Energy plc by Viaro Energy Limited, a company indirectly 96.4 per cent owned by Mr Mazzagatti. API also alleged that Viaro Energy relied on forged loan facility documents, purportedly from two Abu Dhabi individuals for £250 million each (the Abu Dhabi Loan Facilities), to present the acquisition as having legitimate financing.
The court refused API's application for a WWFO, which sought to restrain assets up to €160 million. API had established serious issues to be tried. The decisive question was whether there was a real risk of unjustified dissipation of assets.
The test for a freezing injunction is well established. The applicant must show:
1.
a good arguable case/serious issue to be tried;
2.
a real risk, judged objectively, that a future judgment would not be met because of an unjustified dissipation of assets; and
3.
that it would be just and convenient to grant the order.
The court also noted, citing Holyoake v Candy, that such orders "have the nuclear effect of prohibiting the affected party from dealing with his assets".
The court's refusal turned principally on delay. API first requested freezing undertakings from the Defendants in a letter dated 8 August 2024, the day after the Claim Form was issued. The Defendants declined to provide the undertakings, characterising API's claimed risk of dissipation as "risible". Approximately 17 months later, API issued its WWFO application in January 2026. During that period, API's principal allegations of fraud and forgery had not materially changed.
Drawing on the principles in Madoff Securities International Ltd v Raven, the court acknowledged that delay alone is not dispositive but held that it can be "a powerful consideration". Critically, the court required API to demonstrate new evidence of dissipation risk that had emerged since the delay.
API relied on three developments to justify the timing of its application:
Viaro Investment Limited's financial vulnerability: API's expert suggested that Viaro Investment, Viaro Energy and RockRose were financially vulnerable. The court found that API's case "conflates assets belonging to the Defendants, on the one hand, and assets belonging to the Viaro Group, on the other" and that transactions by the companies did not amount to dissipation by Mr Mazzagatti personally.
The TAQA Court of Appeal decision: The court held that this did not suggest a propensity to strip assets, noting that the first instance findings favourable to Mr Mazzagatti "have not been disturbed by the Court of Appeal".
Excessive remuneration: Whilst acknowledging that the Defendants' salaries were "undoubtedly extremely generous" (Mr Mazzagatti received £68.4 million and Mr Dixit £20.1 million between 2022 and 2024), the court found that Mr Mazzagatti's remuneration was contractually linked to a fixed percentage of EBITDA, fully disclosed in company accounts, and made in the ordinary course of business. ...