HRH Princess Deema Bint Sultan Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud v Ronald William Gibbs

The court may make ancillary disclosure orders to police and preserve the effectiveness of a freezing injunction. Further disclosure is justified where it has practical utility, serves a proper purpose and is proportionate. The order may extend to accounts controlled by the respondent or used as his own, including company accounts where the evidence establishes effective control. A freezing order may be amended to reflect material changes in the respondent’s assets, realistic valuations, asset disposals and undisclosed accounts. Its spending allowance and requirements concerning the source of funds may also be adjusted where necessary for effective supervision.

The claimant applied during the trial for disclosure of the defendant’s bank accounts and relevant company accounts, and for disclosure of the account receiving proceeds from the sale of property in Montenegro. The purpose was to investigate alleged breaches of a worldwide freezing order and identify further hidden or dissipated assets.

The claimant also sought amendment and continuation of the freezing order until judgment. The defendant filed no evidence in response and did not appear on the applications. The central issues were whether the requested disclosure was necessary, proportionate and practically useful, and whether the freezing order should be updated to reflect the defendant’s current asset position and conduct.

1. Disclosure application granted. Under section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, and alternatively under the inherent jurisdiction, the court may make ancillary orders necessary to ensure that a freezing injunction is effective. Asset disclosure is a typical ancillary order used to police such an injunction.
2. The applicable test was whether the further disclosure was necessary to make the freezing order effective. The court had to be satisfied that the evidence sought had practical utility, was required for a proper purpose and was proportionate. The defendant’s repeated non-disclosure, undisclosed accounts, unexplained transfers and apparent dissipation satisfied that test.
3. Disclosure properly extended to accounts in the defendant’s name or control, accounts of companies in the Silver Arrows Marine group, and the account receiving proceeds from the sale of 206 Teuta. The evidence showed that the defendant exercised effective control over the company account and used it for personal purposes.
4. Freezing order amended and continued. The defendant’s asset disclosure required updating to reflect disposals, newly acquired assets, devaluation and disputed beneficial interests. The defendant’s valuation of Silver Arrows Marine was unsupported and substantially inflated. The threshold was therefore reduced to US$29.4 million, excluding that interest, and disposals were restricted unless the claimant confirmed that the remaining portfolio exceeded the threshold or the court gave permission.
5. The weekly allowance for ordinary living expenses was reduced from £17,500 to £7,500. The order was also amended to require details of both the transferring bank account and the ultimate funder whenever permitted expenditure was made. The claimant was permitted to use information obtained through asset disclosure for enforcement of judgments or orders in the proceedings, including foreign judgments.

First-instance decision. No appellate history is stated in the judgment.