Spyridoula-Maria Armeniakou v James Alexander Scott Thomson

The court continued the Asset Disclosure Order (ADO) made by HHJ Pelling KC because the ADO was a permissible ancillary order to a domestic freezing order and was necessary to police that order and to enable consideration of further protective steps. The judge held that CPR Rule 25.1(1)(g) and the principles in JSC Mezhdunarodniy v Pugachev authorised disclosure "about" assets which "are or may be" the subject of a freezing application and that the international dimension and the opacity of the respondent's business justified worldwide disclosure. The court considered and rejected the respondent's reliance on Green v CT Group Holdings Limited as inapplicable on these facts. The confidentiality club was discontinued because overlapping disclosure in Greek proceedings and the need for the claimant and her lawyers to identify discrepancies between disclosures made in the two fora made the club unjust and inconvenient. The claimant was ordered to provide additional fortification of £325,000 and the respondent ordered to pay the costs of the variation application in full and 90% of the costs of the Return Date.

Background and procedural posture. The applicant obtained interim freezing and asset disclosure relief from HHJ Pelling KC on 12 August 2024. The return date and consequential applications followed. The judge on 10 October declined at that stage to make a worldwide freezing order but left open the scope of the ADO; the present judgment resolves the consequentials arising from that decision and related variation applications.

Nature of the applications. The issues before the court were: (i) whether the ADO should be limited to assets in England and Wales or remain worldwide; (ii) whether the confidentiality club should continue; (iii) whether the claimant must provide additional fortification of her cross-undertaking in damages and, if so, in what sum; (iv) costs of the respondent's variation application; and (v) costs of the Return Date.

Key factual findings relevant to relief. The court summarised material concerns about the opacity of the Vulcan Forged business, misleading statutory accounts filed for Vulcan Forged Limited, and other disclosure issues emerging under the ADO that increased the risk of dissipation of assets and supported the need for broad asset disclosure. The court accepted that some relevant information has been or may be disclosed in parallel Greek proceedings.

Issues framed and reasoning.

• Scope of the ADO: The court held that the ADO was a legitimate and necessary ancillary order to make effective the domestic freezing order. CPR Rule 25.1(1)(g) permits orders requiring information about assets which "are or may be" the subject of a freezing application; JSC and related authorities recognise that disclosure orders ancillary to freezing relief may extend to assets beyond the territorial ambit of the freezing order where necessary to police and preserve the value of assets. Green (concerning Norwich Pharmacal relief for use abroad) was held to be irrelevant because the purpose of the ADO was to serve the English freezing proceedings.
• Confidentiality club: The court discontinued the confidentiality club. The existence of parallel Greek proceedings, overlapping disclosure and the claimant's undertaking against collateral use, together with the practical need for the claimant and her English lawyers to compare material disclosed in different fora, made the continued confidentiality regime unjust and inconvenient.
• Fortification: Applying the fortification principles as stated in Alta Trading, the court found a good arguable case that the respondent will suffer loss of use of frozen funds and ordered additional fortification of £325,000 into the claimant's solicitors' designated client account.
• Costs: The respondent was ordered to pay 100% of the costs of the variation application and 90% of the costs of the Return Date, with the judge reducing the claimant's recoverable costs by 10% to reflect limited procedural shortcomings.

Wider implications. The court noted that continuation of the ADO requires reconsideration of whether material disclosed under it should remain private, given that the earlier decision to protect such material in private was made when the ADO's validity was disputed.

The court continued the Asset Disclosure Order and concluded it was a lawful and necessary ancillary order to police the freezing order; it discontinued the confidentiality club arrangements because overlapping disclosure in Greek proceedings and the need for the claimant and her English lawyers to identify discrepancies made the club unjust and inconvenient; it ordered additional fortification of £325,000; it ordered the respondent to pay 100% of the costs of the variation application and 90% of the costs of the Return Date. The reasoning was that CPR Rule 25.1(1)(g), JSC and related authorities permit disclosure orders about assets which are or may be the subject of freezing relief and that the facts (opacity of the respondent's business, questionable accounts and risk of dissipation) justified a worldwide ADO in order to police the domestic freezing order; Green was inapplicable on these facts.