When a court enters judgment against a defendant for a substantial sum, the battle is not always over. The judgment creditor still faces the very real risk that, by the time enforcement steps are taken, the defendant will have dissipated its assets. Worldwide Freezing Orders (“WFOs”) are one of the most powerful tools available to prevent exactly that outcome.
A recent decision from the London Circuit Commercial Court, Fibula Air Travels SRL v Just-US Air SRL [2026], provides practical guidance on how post-judgment WFOs should be structured, and in particular how courts should approach the so-called “ordinary course of business” exception.
Just-US Air SRL (“Just Us”) obtained judgment against Fibula Air Travels SRL (“Fibula”) on 12 December 2025 for €5,603,991, rising to €5,710,851 with accrued interest which it was ordered to pay into court following a consequentials hearing in March 2026. Fibula did not pay. Instead, it sought permission to appeal, applied for a stay of execution (which was dismissed), and was said to have been pursuing a court-approved debt restructuring scheme in Romania (though further evidence of this was not provided).
Against this backdrop, and having provided evidence of a risk of dissipation of assets, Just Us obtained a post-judgment WFO on 1 May 2026. At the return date on 22 May 2026, Just Us sought to remove the “ordinary course of business” exception entirely. Fibula sought either full discharge of the WFO or an increase in the notification threshold from €2,000 to €40,000.
What Is the “Ordinary Course of Business” Exception?
A standard WFO prohibits a respondent from dealing with its assets up to the value of the judgment sum. Without qualification, this could bring a trading business to a standstill. The “ordinary course of business” exception (the Angel Bell exception) addresses this by permitting the respondent to continue spending in the ordinary course of business, provided expenditure above a defined threshold is notified to the applicant in advance. It is a safety valve designed to prevent a freezing order from becoming an instrument of destruction rather than preservation.
The Legal Framework
In his judgment, Deputy High Court Judge Paul Mitchell KC referred to the Court of Appeal case of Michael Wilson v John Emmott [2019], which reached the following conclusions concerning the “ordinary course of business” exception in post-judgment freezing orders:
- Post-judgment WFOs serve a specific purpose. To facilitate execution by guarding against dissipation between judgment and enforcement. They are not intended to confer a preference in insolvency.
- Increased pressure on a defendant is not illegitimate. A post-judgment WFO will, by its nature, increase pressure on a defendant to honour the judgment debt. That does not make the order improper.
- The exception is not automatically inappropriate post-judgment. Earlier judicial observations suggesting the Angel Bell exception would always be inappropriate once judgment had been entered went too far.
- However, it will “sometimes and perhaps usually” be inappropriate to include it. Given the law’s strong policy in favour of enforcing judgments, it would be curious to leave a judgment debtor entirely free to carry on business and ignore an outstanding debt.
- The decision is discretionary and fact-specific. Courts should neither treat removal as a presumption nor confine it to cases of last resort. The more draconian the relief sought, the greater the justification required, but there is no rigid rule either way.
The Court of Appeal also rejected any distinction between bank balances and other assets, removing the exception in respect of bank accounts alone could prove just as destructive to a defendant’s business.
Applying the Principles: A Tailored Solution
The court identified clear grounds for concern about Fibula’s conduct. Specifically, evidence which suggested that Fibula had been transferring value to companies connected with its owner, a Mr Ayhan Mavisu. However, a complicating factor was that Fibula had been granted permission to appeal the judgment in part. It could not be right to remove the exception entirely, potentially condemning Fibula to go out of business, only for Fibula to succeed on appeal.
The court therefore adopted a middle path, crafting a modified exception that balanced the competing interests:
- An absolute prohibition is introduced on transferring any asset or thing of value for any purpose whatsoever to certain third parties; and
- Any payment over €7,000 must be communicated to Just Us on the day of the transaction.
The €7,000 threshold represents a compromise between Just Us’s position (complete removal) and Fibula’s position (€40,000).
What This Means…
For judgment creditors:
- A standard WFO may not be sufficient where there is evidence of specific dissipation risks. Consider applying to narrow or remove the exception but be prepared to argue for a tailored solution rather than outright removal, particularly where the judgment is under appeal.
- Evidence of the respondent’s conduct is critical. The absolute prohibition on transfers to connected parties in this case was driven directly by the evidence of past behaviour.
For judgment debtors:
- A freezing order does not necessarily mean the end of your business. Courts are open to preserving the exception where appropriate, but if there is evidence of transfers to connected parties, expect the court to act.
- A pending appeal is a relevant factor. Courts may be less likely to remove the exception entirely where the underlying judgment may yet be overturned.
- The notification threshold is a live battleground with significant practical consequences. Come to court with clear evidence of your typical transaction sizes.
Fibula v Just-US acts as a reminder that post-judgment freezing orders are not one-size-fits-all instruments. Whether the “ordinary course of business” exception should be included, removed, or modified turns entirely on the facts, including the evidence of dissipation risk, the impact on the respondent’s business, and whether the underlying judgment is subject to appeal.
If you are facing enforcement proceedings, or are concerned that a defendant may be dissipating assets, specialist legal advice at the earliest possible stage is essential.
