Qatar Investment and Projects Development Holding Company & Anor v Phoenix Ancient Art SA & Ors

A worldwide freezing order may be granted where the claimant establishes a good arguable case, insufficient assets within the jurisdiction, assets outside it, and a real risk of dissipation, and where relief is just and convenient. Delay in applying is not an automatic bar. The court must assess whether a real risk of dissipation remains. The absence of a public register for valuable movable assets may increase that risk. Asset-disclosure obligations should be proportionate and workable, particularly where the application is urgent and made shortly before the return date.

Following summary judgment for the claimants in two actions concerning the sale of artefacts, the claimants sought an interim post-judgment worldwide freezing order against several defendants. The judgment debt, interest, costs and related damages were estimated at approximately US$10.7 million.

The application was made on short notice before judgment had been entered. The defendants disputed the need for immediate relief, challenged the proposed amount and scope of the order, and argued that the disclosure obligations were impracticable. The central issues were whether the requirements for a worldwide freezing order were met and what interim freezing and disclosure measures were proportionate pending a return hearing.

1. Relief granted. The court granted an interim worldwide freezing order until the return date, subject to drafting amendments, and fixed the value of frozen assets at US$10 million. Asset-disclosure orders were also made, extending to associated entities.
2. The claimants had a good arguable case. The recent summary judgment provided a substantial basis for that conclusion, and the amount sought was not obviously excessive.
3. The requirement of insufficient assets within the jurisdiction and assets outside it was satisfied. Evidence indicated substantial personal and corporate wealth, while earlier assertions of impecuniosity had been rejected as unsatisfactory. The likely value of inherited artefacts did not prevent the court from finding that sufficient assets probably existed outside the jurisdiction.
4. There was a real risk of dissipation or secretion. Relevant matters included the nature of the wrongdoing, the defendants’ conduct of the litigation, their history of non-transparent transactions, disregard of court orders, opaque international structures and transactions lacking an obvious commercial purpose.
5. It was just and convenient to grant relief despite the lateness of the application. Applying the observations in JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank v Pugachev [2015] EWCA Civ 906, delay was not itself a bar where the evidence established a continuing real risk of dissipation. The court also accepted the relevance of Madoff Securities International Limited v Raven [2011] EWHC 3102 (Comm).
6. The usual undertaking in damages was sufficient for the interim order; fortification by bank guarantee was unnecessary at that stage. Straightforward disclosure was required by the return date, while complex disclosure was provisionally deferred to the end of May 2025 for reconsideration at the return hearing.

The judgment records that Garnham J had granted summary judgment in the two underlying actions on 11 April 2025: [2025] EWHC 898 (KB). The present decision concerned the claimants’ subsequent interim application for a post-judgment worldwide freezing order and asset disclosure.