Loudmila Bourlakova & Ors v Oleg Bourlakov & Ors

An order for further information under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Part 18 may concern any disputed matter relevant to the proceedings, including matters not pleaded against the party receiving the order. The request must remain concise and strictly confined to information reasonably necessary and proportionate to enable the applicant to prepare its case or understand the case it must meet.

In assessing proportionality, the court considers the likely benefit, the likely cost and the responding party’s financial resources. Information may be ordered before disclosure where it is readily available, materially assists an imminent application, and its provision is not unduly onerous. The court may modify an overbroad request rather than refuse it altogether.

The claim concerns an alleged fraudulent scheme involving the ownership and assets of Edelweiss Investments Inc. The claimants sought information from Edelweiss under Part 18 concerning transfers of assets exceeding USD 50,000 during the period from April 2018 to July 2020.

Edelweiss resisted the request, although it had previously indicated that it would provide a forensic accounting report. The central issues were whether the request concerned matters in dispute, whether it was reasonably necessary and proportionate, and whether the court should exercise its discretion to order compliance while related disclosure, injunction and summary judgment applications remained pending.

1. Jurisdiction. The request concerned disputed matters, including the alleged misappropriation of Edelweiss’ assets, the value of those assets, related damages, partnership allegations and the forthcoming injunction application. A party may be ordered to provide information about a matter in dispute even where the related relief is not sought against that party.
2. Necessity. Under CPR Part 18 and paragraph 1.2 of Practice Direction 18, a request must be concise and strictly confined to matters reasonably necessary to prepare the applicant’s case or understand the case to be met. Edelweiss’ pleading was unclear concerning transfers and alleged misappropriation. Its own records made it well placed to provide clarification. The information was also reasonably necessary for assessing risk of dissipation and the balance of convenience on the injunction application.
3. Proportionality. The request concerned approximately 400 transactions in a substantial and high-value dispute. The information was readily available, significant analytical work had already been undertaken, and the exercise would not be unduly onerous. The fact that disclosure might later cover the same issues did not make the request disproportionate.
4. Modification and discretion. The request was too broad insofar as it sought information about assets or proceeds received by any other person and required equivalent onward-disposition details under sub-paragraph (g). Those parts were removed. The court otherwise exercised its discretion to grant the application. The pending summary judgment application and Edelweiss’ potential removal as a party did not justify postponing the information, particularly because the information was relevant to the injunction application. The application was granted with modification.