Akhmedova v Akhmedov & Ors

An existing freezing order may be varied where there remains a real risk that the judgment or order it protects will go unsatisfied. A change of circumstances may be established where the order’s specified assets no longer reflect the respondent’s total assets and the respondent has exploited perceived gaps in the order. Where the standard form would permit assets to be moved to jurisdictions in which enforcement is difficult, the court may adopt the Ablyazov modification, removing permission to deal with assets outside England and Wales while preserving the value limit of the order. Alternative service may also be authorised where the respondent has placed himself beyond the practical reach of the court.

The applicant wife sought variation and extension of worldwide freezing orders made against the husband in December 2016 and March 2018. Those orders supported a financial remedy judgment requiring the husband to pay her £453,576,152, which remained substantially unsatisfied. The wife relied on evidence of further undisclosed assets, continuing payments to third parties and dealings suggesting that the husband and others had exploited perceived ambiguities in the orders.

The application raised whether the threshold for continuing protection was met, whether there had been a sufficient change of circumstances, and whether the orders should be modified to prevent transfers to jurisdictions where enforcement would be difficult.

1. Threshold for variation. The court held that the relevant question was whether there was a real risk that the judgments and orders in the wife’s favour would go unsatisfied if relief were not granted. That threshold was plainly met. The husband had not paid the judgment debt voluntarily, enforcement had recovered only approximately £5 million, and evidence indicated continued dealings with assets and payments to third parties despite the existing orders.
2. Change of circumstances and scope. There had been a change of circumstances justifying variation. The specified assets in the existing freezing orders no longer accurately reflected the totality of the husband’s assets. The orders were therefore varied and extended to make clear that they applied to all his assets, furthering the purpose for which they had been granted.
3. Modification of the standard form. Following the modification adopted in JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov [2009] 2 CLC 967, the usual permission to dispose of or deal with assets outside England and Wales was removed, while retaining the value limit of the freezing order. The husband had demonstrated both a willingness and an ability to move assets to jurisdictions where enforcement was difficult.
4. Service and costs. Alternative service remained appropriate because the husband had placed himself beyond the practical reach of the court. He was ordered to pay the wife’s costs of the application in full.

The judgment refers to earlier financial remedy proceedings and freezing orders made by Haddon-Cave J in December 2016 and March 2018. No appellate history is stated.