Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The proceedings concerned three appeals, all of which related to powers exercisable in connection with the grant of a freezing order in respect of the defendant's assets, including, an order for disclosure made by the first judge, which the second judge refused to set aside, and an order by the third judge that the claimants gave a cross-undertaking unlimited in amount and that it be fortified. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held, inter alia, that the first judge had had jurisdiction to have made the order that he had and the second judge had had jurisdiction to have refused to set it aside. Neither judge had exercised his discretion in an impermissible manner. As to the extent of the cross-undertaking, the third judge had been entitled to have exercised her discretion in the way that she had. However, in respect of fortification, her conclusions were unsustainable on the evidence.