Loudmila Bourlakova & Ors v The Estate of Oleg Bourlakov & Ors

Ancillary relief supporting a freezing order or proprietary injunction may be granted where it is just and convenient to protect assets threatened with loss and to ensure that the order remains effective. The threatened loss need not itself amount to a breach of the injunction or undertaking. Disclosure may be ordered where it has real practical utility in enabling the claimant to decide what protective steps to take, including steps concerning a threatened arbitration or enforcement of an award. The court must prevent ancillary disclosure from becoming an investigation into the substantive claim. Arbitration confidentiality is an important factor, but it is not an absolute bar. It may be outweighed by the seriousness and scale of the threat to the protected assets, particularly where the arbitration appears bogus or potentially collusive.

The Bourlakovas applied for ancillary orders against Edelweiss in existing ownership and asset-protection proceedings. They sought disclosure of pleadings, evidence, procedural orders and hearing materials in a Moscow arbitration in which Mr Ploshchenko claimed more than $101 million from Edelweiss. They also sought notifications of any award or enforcement process, restrictions on payment, and a transcript or recording of any hearing.

The application followed a July 2025 ruling in which Richard Smith J dismissed an application for a worldwide freezing order for want of sufficient risk of dissipation, but concluded that a proprietary freezing order was justified and accepted an undertaking from Edelweiss in lieu of an injunction. The central issues were whether the arbitration created a sufficient threat to the protected assets, whether the orders had practical utility, and how that utility should be balanced against arbitration confidentiality.

1. Application granted. The court ordered Edelweiss to provide the specified arbitration materials, future documents within the relevant categories, notice and a copy of any award, 28 days’ notice before paying any award, documents comprising any enforcement process, and a transcript or recording of any hearing.
2. An ancillary order is justified where it is necessary, or just and convenient, to ensure that a freezing order, proprietary injunction or undertaking in lieu of an injunction is effective. The purpose is protection of the assets, not merely prevention of a voluntary breach. A real risk that protected assets may be lost is sufficient even where the loss might occur through an involuntary court enforcement process.
3. Disclosure must have practical utility and must be confined to information necessary for policing or protecting the assets. It must not be used as a means of investigating the substantive claim, obtaining a fishing expedition, or developing a new substantive case.
4. The apparently bogus arbitration, involving a potential loss exceeding $100 million, created a substantial threat to assets subject to the undertaking. The unusual timing, lack of prior warning and other features gave rise to a real, rather than fanciful, risk of a wider attempt to extract assets. The Bourlakovas therefore needed access to the documents before any award was issued so that they could consider protective steps and possible resistance to enforcement.
5. Confidentiality under the ICAC Rules did not outweigh the need for relief. The confidentiality was not absolute, there was no real prospect of criminal prosecution, the risk of a penalty was uncertain, and the order contained safeguards restricting use and requiring confidentiality. Use of the materials in the existing proceedings was limited to steps for preserving or protecting Edelweiss’s assets.
6. The court directed that timing for notifications should be “as soon as reasonably practicable”; that a copy of the award should be provided; and that enforcement disclosure should cover documents comprising the enforcement process, rather than all documents merely relevant to it.

The judgment concerned an interlocutory application in ongoing High Court proceedings. Richard Smith J’s earlier judgment was reported at [2025] EWHC 1792 (Ch). His conclusion concerning the proprietary freezing order was under appeal to the Court of Appeal, but the present application was determined at first instance.