Beijing Songxianghu Architectural Decoration Engineering Co. Ltd v Kitty Kam

Asset disclosure is ordinarily an essential ancillary feature of a freezing order. A pending challenge to the order, including an allegation that it was obtained in breach of an undertaking to a foreign court, does not ordinarily justify deferring or staying disclosure. The court retains a fact-sensitive discretion. It must balance the defendant’s privacy and other prejudice against the claimant’s need to police the order and prevent dissipation. Strong evidence of fraud, a serious risk of dissipation, concerns about compliance, and a particular need for effective policing may strongly favour immediate disclosure. A short-term deferral may be justified where there are serious concerns about the process by which the order was obtained and the return hearing is imminent.

The claimant sought variation of an existing freezing order requiring the defendant to provide asset disclosure by affidavit. The order had been granted without notice by Robin Knowles J and continued by Butcher J after an inter partes hearing, at which the defendant argued that the English proceedings breached an undertaking given to the Hong Kong Court. Butcher J declined to determine that issue and refused to defer disclosure.

The defendant had appealed that decision and separately sought an anti-suit injunction in Hong Kong. She applied for disclosure and costs obligations to be deferred until the Hong Kong application was determined, and alternatively sought permission to provide a witness statement rather than an affidavit. The central issue was whether those circumstances justified departing from the ordinary rule requiring prompt disclosure.

1. Application refused. The defendant was not entitled to defer compliance with the asset-disclosure obligations imposed by the freezing order.
2. The ordinary position is that asset disclosure should be provided promptly. It enables the claimant to police the order and gives the injunction practical force. A pending dispute about whether the order should have been made, or whether it should be discharged, is not ordinarily a reason to stay enforcement or permit non-compliance.
3. The court must assess the balance of justice and injustice, including the competing degrees of prejudice. Although disclosure invades privacy, that consequence is ordinarily justified by the court’s decision that a freezing order is an appropriate remedy. The claimant’s prejudice from being unable to police the order may substantially outweigh the defendant’s prejudice if the order is later discharged.
4. The circumstances materially favoured immediate disclosure. There was a strong prima facie case of fraud, a serious risk of dissipation, evidence raising real concerns about compliance with court orders, and a particularly important need for targeted notifications, asset tracing and investigation of the disclosure. Confidential disclosure limited to the defendant’s lawyers or the court would not provide adequate protection.
5. J&J Snacks Food Corporation & Anor v Ralph Peters & Sons Ltd & Anor [2024] EWHC 3439 (Ch) was distinguishable. That case concerned an early return hearing, serious provisional concerns about the process by which the order had been obtained, and a short deferral of disclosure pending a fuller hearing. Here, the defendant had already had a full return-date hearing and the injunction had been continued.
6. The request to replace the affidavit requirement with a witness statement also failed. The difference relied upon was only the inclusion of the notary’s name and address. Given the defendant’s previous use of affidavits and the importance of the solemnity of an oath, there was no reason to vary the requirement.

• High Court (Commercial Court): Robin Knowles J granted the freezing order on 12 March 2025. Butcher J continued it after an inter partes hearing and refused the defendant’s discharge application by order dated 4 April 2025.
• Court of Appeal: Permission to appeal on the undertaking issue was granted by Popplewell LJ on 13 June 2025. The appeal was listed for 23 April 2026. Permission on the full and frank disclosure ground was refused.
• High Court (Commercial Court): The present application to defer asset disclosure and vary the form of disclosure was refused.