Akhmedova v Akhmedov & Ors

At the return date of a without-notice freezing order, the court may continue injunctive relief where the grounds for granting it remain valid and subsequent evidence reinforces rather than undermines the case. Delay in formal service does not necessarily require discharge where the strict requirements of the chosen method caused the delay, the respondents had earlier notice, the minimum period for notice was met, and no prejudice was shown. Non-compliance with disclosure obligations may support continuation of the order.

The Wife sought continuation of freezing orders made without notice against the Husband and several associated entities. The orders arose from long-running financial-remedy litigation in which a substantial award remained unpaid and enforcement was alleged to have been frustrated.

The respondents had been served or notified through various alternative methods. Formal service on two Liechtenstein entities was delayed, but they had received the order and hearing date more than five weeks earlier and had at least the notice required by the Family Procedure Rules. Further developments included decisions of the Liechtenstein Constitutional Court, information from financial investigations, and enforcement steps in other jurisdictions. The central issue was whether the freezing orders should continue.

1. The freezing orders were continued. The reasons for granting without-notice relief remained valid and had been reinforced by subsequent events. The court therefore ordered that the injunctions continue.
2. The court accepted that service on the Husband and Cotor had been effected by permitted alternative methods, including successful delivery by email. Although delivery to some addresses had failed, the documents had reached relevant email addresses without any indication of failed transmission.
3. Formal service on Counselor Trust Reg. and Sobaldo Establishment through Liechtenstein judicial channels had been delayed by translation, verification, transmission and court-service requirements. The delay did not justify discharging the order. Both entities had received the freezing order identifying the return date for more than five weeks, had suffered no prejudice, and had received the minimum seven days’ notice required by rule 18.8(1) of the Family Procedure Rules.
4. The failure of Counselor and Sobaldo to provide disclosure within the period required by the freezing order suggested that they had chosen to disregard it. This was a relevant development when assessing whether the injunctive relief should remain in force.
5. Information disclosed through the Liechtenstein Constitutional Court proceedings supported the inferences previously drawn concerning beneficial ownership, transfers through associated trusts and the continued existence of valuable assets in Liechtenstein. Other enforcement developments, including recognition of the financial award in New York and judgment obtained in the Marshall Islands, did not adversely affect the Wife’s case.