LOUDMILA BOURLAKOVA & Ors v OLEG BOURLAKOV & Ors

The court determined a series of interlinked jurisdictional and case-management applications in multi‑jurisdictional fraud and asset disputes arising from a divorced couple’s breakdown. The principal issues were whether the English court had jurisdiction (including by virtue of the Brussels Recast Regulation article 8 where applicable), whether permission to serve out of the jurisdiction had been properly granted, whether England was the appropriate forum or whether proceedings should be stayed (by reason of forum non conveniens or article 34 BRR), whether a stay should be ordered under section 9 Arbitration Act 1996, and whether service in Latvia was valid.

Key holdings: the court concluded there was a serious issue to be tried and that the earlier orders permitting service out were correctly made; it rejected the defendants’ applications to set aside service out and refused stays under article 34 BRR and on common‑law forum non conveniens grounds; it refused a s.9 Arbitration Act stay as to the protector claims save that the claimant must not pursue matters properly arising from the Foundations’ charters (these must be resolved by arbitration); and it held that service on the Latvian domiciliary (Mr Anufriev) was valid despite technical arguments based on Latvian postal formalities.

Background and parties. The claim was brought by Mrs Loudmila Bourlakova and two companies asserting a broad conspiracy and series of torts (deceit, unlawful means conspiracy and related claims) by or involving multiple defendants across jurisdictions. The pleaded wrongdoing comprised misrepresentations (section A), concealment and alleged forgeries (section B), alleged misappropriation of assets held in Panamanian foundations and companies (section C) and destruction/concealment of documents (sections D and E). The dispute overlapped with several proceedings in Monaco, Switzerland, Cyprus and elsewhere, including divorce, criminal investigations and estate administration.

Nature of application and relief sought. Defendants (notably the Kazakovs, Mr Anufriev and the Panamanian companies) challenged jurisdiction and sought: (a) to set aside prior orders granting permission to serve the claim form out of the jurisdiction; (b) stays under article 34 of the Brussels Recast Regulation or on forum non conveniens grounds; (c) a case‑management stay; (d) a stay under section 9 Arbitration Act 1996 for matters argued to be covered by arbitration clauses in Panamanian foundation charters; and (e) declarations that service in Latvia was ineffective.

Issues framed by the court.

• Whether there was a serious issue to be tried and whether the claimants satisfied gateways for service out.
• Whether England was the proper forum or whether Monaco (or another jurisdiction) was more appropriate, including the application of article 34 BRR and the forum non conveniens principles of Spiliada.
• Whether arbitration agreements in the Panamanian foundation charters required a stay under section 9 for the protector‑related claims.
• Whether service in Latvia complied with applicable procedural / Hague Convention requirements.

Reasoning and conclusions (concise). The court accepted that the claimants had established a serious issue to be tried and that permission to serve outwas properly obtained (including via the BRR gateway where relevant). On domicile the court found a good arguable case that Mrs Kazakova was domiciled in Estonia at the date of issue (engaging article 8(1) BRR), so service without permission on her was lawful under the applicable rules. The court rejected the article 34 BRR and common‑law forum non conveniens stay applications: Monaco proceedings did not displace England as the proper forum for the whole dispute because (inter alia) there was a real prospect of parallel English proceedings continuing against the English anchor defendant and others, there were obstacles to consolidation/efficient joint trial in Monaco (estate and criminal processes, disputed standing to litigate the asset issues) and practical and enforcement considerations favoured England. On the Arbitration Act issue the judge held that claims arising from the protector’s acts under the Foundation Charters fall to arbitration; the claimants therefore must not pursue causes of action founded on acts done in that capacity in court but may continue claims as to alleged wrongdoing outside the protector role. Finally, service on Mr Anufriev in Latvia was held valid despite technical objections based on Latvian postal formalities.

This first‑instance court dismissed the defendants’ challenges to its jurisdiction and refused stays. The judge held that permission to serve out had been properly granted and should not be set aside; article 34 BRR and common‑law forum non conveniens stays were refused; an application to stay under s.9 Arbitration Act 1996 was refused in substance (but the court ruled that matters arising under the Foundation Charters must be arbitrated and cannot be pursued in these proceedings); and service on the Latvian defendant was valid. The court’s conclusions were driven by considerations of the litigation’s multi‑jurisdictional character, the risk of multiplicity/inconsistent judgments, the location and domicile findings, and the scope of the arbitration clauses.