Svetlana Bunina v Orkhan Nasibov

A domestic freezing injunction may be continued where the claimant establishes jurisdiction, a good arguable case, a real risk that assets will be dissipated, and that continuation is just and convenient. Risk of dissipation is assessed cumulatively. Relevant matters may include inadequate assets, movement of property, jurisdictional mobility, opaque addresses, corporate control, non-compliance with demands, insolvency indicators and weak financial structures. The injunction’s scope, the strength of the underlying claim, the absence of opposition and fortification of the cross-undertaking are relevant to whether continuation is just and convenient.

The claimant sought continuation of a domestic freezing injunction granted without notice on 2 March 2026. The underlying claim arose from a fund storage agreement with Guavapay UAB, secured by the defendant’s personal guarantee. The claimant alleged that 15 Bitcoin and accrued interest had not been returned and that the defendant had failed to honour the guarantee.

The claim and supporting documents were served through methods authorised or accepted by the court, including a Telegram account. The defendant did not attend, was not represented and filed no evidence. The central issues were whether the requirements for continuation of the injunction were met and whether service had been effective.

1. Service. The court was satisfied to a very high standard that the freezing injunction and related documents had been served on the defendant through the Telegram account. It was unnecessary to determine whether the person responding to the messages was the defendant because that person stated that the documents had been forwarded to him.
2. Jurisdiction and merits. The exclusive jurisdiction clause in the personal guarantee engaged the jurisdiction of the English court. Although the agreement referred to the laws of the United Kingdom, that expression was construed as referring to English law, having regard to the exclusive jurisdiction clause and the defendant’s London address. The claimant had a good arguable case, with no obvious or apparent defence on the documents and no response from the defendant.
3. Risk of dissipation. The court was entirely satisfied that there was a real risk of dissipation. The assessment was cumulative. Relevant factors were the apparent insufficiency of the Lithuanian company’s assets, possible movement of the Bitcoin, the defendant’s exceptional jurisdictional mobility and multiple addresses, insolvency-related events affecting an English company, the defendant’s effective control of the corporate group, failure to respond to demands, and the companies’ weak financial position.
4. Just and convenient. Continuation was just and convenient because the order was domestic and limited in scope, used the standard form, was supported by a £25,000 fortification of the claimant’s cross-undertaking, and concerned an apparently strong claim which had not been opposed.
5. Order. The freezing injunction was continued until trial or further order, with the court clarifying that an earlier conclusion of the proceedings could be addressed by application for discharge.

This was a first-instance return-date application. A domestic freezing injunction had previously been granted without notice by HHJ Malcolm Davis-White KC on 2 March 2026. The present court continued the injunction until trial or further order.