Joint Stock Company "Aeroflot Russian Airlines" v Berezovsky & Ors

The jurisdiction to appoint a receiver over an estate lacking a current representative is exceptional and must be directed to a demonstrated practical need, such as collecting income or preventing loss caused by unpaid liabilities. A temporary gap in representation, coupled with speculative risks, does not justify a far-reaching ex parte order. A receiver appointed to fill that gap should not automatically receive powers appropriate to support a freezing injunction, including extensive asset-delivery, search or litigation powers. The court should instead consider the least extensive order needed and whether the matter can await notice and an expedited hearing.

Aeroflot applied without notice for the appointment of insolvency practitioners as receivers of the estate of Boris Berezovsky, a defendant who had recently died. The application was made while the executors had not yet obtained a grant of representation and sought extensive powers concerning assets, documents and the conduct of litigation.

The court considered whether the gap in representation and alleged risk of dissipation justified immediate receivership under section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, and whether the requested powers were appropriate on an ex parte basis.

1. Application refused in its present form. The court made no order on the receivership application, directed that the application be heard on notice as an expedited interim application, and reserved the costs of the hearing.
2. Section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 confers jurisdiction to appoint a receiver where an estate has no current representative. Typical justification includes the need to collect income or service liabilities where neglect might cause forfeiture or loss of security. The applicant had not identified such income or liabilities with sufficient precision.
3. The alleged risk of dissipation did not justify immediate ex parte relief. Appointment of receivers to represent the estate would not itself freeze assets or restrain third parties. The claimant had not demonstrated that the limited benefit of an immediate order outweighed the need for notice and consideration by the beneficiaries and executors.
4. The draft order was disproportionately wide. It sought powers to defend proceedings, search premises and require largely unidentified third parties to deliver assets, potentially exposing parties with bona fide ownership disputes to contempt proceedings. Such powers could not be granted merely because a receiver was being appointed to fill a temporary representation gap.
5. The court distinguished the context of JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov, where receivership was said to have been appointed in support of a freezing injunction. It was impermissible to proceed in the opposite direction by using a representation appointment as the basis for freezing-injunction-type powers without first establishing a proper case for freezing relief.

First-instance decision. The judgment itself does not state any prior appeal or lower-court decision concerning this application.