Akhmedova v Akhmedov & Ors

The court may determine an English statutory claim even where the relevant assets are abroad and enforcement may be difficult. Foreign law, including foreign criminal law, does not automatically prevent an English court from ordering disclosure or other acts. The court must balance the legitimate domestic interest in deciding and enforcing its proceedings against the actual risk and consequences of breach of foreign law, while respecting territorial limits and comity.

A stay is exceptional and requires rare and compelling circumstances. Final financial remedy orders are protected by strict rules on setting aside. Applicants must use the correct procedural route, act promptly, and establish a recognised ground such as fraud, material non-disclosure, mistake or an unforeseen event invalidating the order’s basis.

The wife sought disclosure from Counselor Trust Reg and Sobaldo Establishment in support of claims under Insolvency Act 1986 section 423 and Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 section 37. Certain committal respondents sought release from obligations imposed by earlier English orders, including orders transferring artwork and a yacht and an order requiring disclosure. Counselor and Sobaldo also sought a stay pending Liechtenstein proceedings.

The applications raised questions about the effect of Liechtenstein law, the proper forum, comity, the risk of inconsistent decisions, and the procedural routes for varying final and interim orders.

1. Stay. The application by Counselor and Sobaldo was refused. The English and Liechtenstein proceedings had substantial factual and evidential overlap, but they concerned different parties, relief and legal questions. A stay was not justified merely because the assets were in Liechtenstein or because enforcement might require further proceedings there. The jurisdiction is broad but cautious, and stays of this kind require rare and compelling circumstances.
2. Foreign law and comity. Applying Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Co SAL [2008] EWCA Civ 1367, Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Co SAL [2011] EWHC 1024 (Comm), Brannigan v Davidson [1997] AC 238 and Bank Mellat v HM Treasury [2019] EWCA Civ 449, the court held that English law and procedure could require conduct which might breach foreign law. The court must exercise a flexible discretion and balance the domestic interest against the real risk of foreign prosecution. Once an order is made, foreign illegality does not automatically excuse non-compliance.
3. Territorial limits. SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Limited [2020] EWCA Civ 599 limits exorbitant enforcement against assets situated abroad; it does not prevent determination of liability under English law. The court must consider the connection with England, whether the order is exorbitant, and its effects on foreign parties.
4. Variation. The applications concerning the December 2016 and March 2018 orders were applications to set aside final financial and hybrid orders. Rule 9.9A of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 was the appropriate route for the financial remedy components, not rule 4.1(6). The applicants had not acted promptly and established no recognised ground for setting aside. The application concerning the interim August 2019 order also failed because the applicants had deliberately failed to attend the return hearing and could not satisfy the applicable criteria.
5. Disclosure. Disclosure from Counselor and Sobaldo was necessary for the fair determination of the claims. The court weighed the actual risk of prosecution under section 121 of the Liechtenstein Criminal Code against the importance of the documents. That risk was little more than hypothetical, and the balance strongly favoured disclosure.