Factual and Procedural Background
On 9 February 2026, on a without-notice application by the Plaintiff, Judge Bright granted a worldwide freezing order ("WFO") over the assets of the Defendants (a husband and wife who reside in England and Wales). The WFO arose from legal proceedings the Plaintiff had commenced in Russia on 2 December 2025 against the Defendant (husband) and another individual, seeking RUB7,191,396,362.56 under a facility agreement for the advance of funds to a Russian oil company (referred to below as Company A). In July 2024 the Defendants and the other individual acquired 25% of the shares in Company A's parent (Company B) and, as a condition to the Plaintiff's approval, entered guarantee agreements dated 15 July 2024. Company A defaulted in April 2025; the Plaintiff alleges false promises and forged documents by certain individuals. The Russian courts and the DIFC courts granted related freezing orders against various individuals and entities. At the WFO return date hearing the parties agreed continuation of the WFO pending the Defendants' anticipated application to set it aside; three contested subsidiary issues were identified and argued on 27 February 2026. The Plaintiff and the Defendants (and a third party individual who applied separately) were represented by counsel; the Judge reserved judgment and later delivered the reasons recorded here.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the WFO should be varied to increase the financial value threshold for asset disclosure required by the WFO (from £5,000 to a higher sum).
- Whether the fortification of the Plaintiff's cross-undertaking in damages should be amended by increasing the fortified amount and by requiring a payment into Court.
- Whether references in the WFO to a third party individual, entities controlled by that individual (including Company F), and to the Property should be removed from the WFO.
Arguments of the Parties
Defendants' Arguments (represented by Attorney Bools)
- The disclosure threshold of £5,000 is oppressive and burdensome; increasing it to £25,000 is appropriate given the scale of the Plaintiff's claim and practical difficulties of valuing numerous chattels.
- The Plaintiff's cross-undertaking is ineffective because the Plaintiff is a designated (sanctioned) person and cannot make payments without a licence; fortification should be increased from £100,000 to £500,000 and paid into Court to secure potential losses and costs.
Plaintiff's Arguments (represented by Attorney Barclay)
- The £5,000 disclosure threshold is commonly used and proportionate; there is no compelling reason to increase it, particularly given concerns about completeness and accuracy of the Defendants' disclosed asset lists.
- There is no basis to depart from the fortification and ring‑fencing arrangement ordered by Judge Bright; requiring payment into Court would complicate the undertaking and still require sanctions licences.
Third Party Individual's Arguments (represented by Attorney Howard)
- The references to the third party individual, Company F and the Property should be removed because the third party (and Company F) have no connection to the Defendants and the Defendants occupy the Property only as tenants introduced by an estate agent.
- If the injunction continues to refer to those third parties, the third party contends the continuation is a substantial infringement of civil liberties in the absence of evidence linking them to the Defendants.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| JSC BTA Bank v Solodchenko [2010] EWCA Civ 1436; [2011] 1 WLR 888 |
Freezing orders commonly require defendants to identify assets because defendants may be reticent; disclosure is an important part of a freezing order's operation. |
The court relied on Longmore LJ's observation to support the purpose of a disclosure order and the need for transparency of assets to police the WFO. |
| PJSC Tatneft v Bogolyubov [2018] EWHC 1314 (Comm); [2018] 1 WLR 5705 |
Disclosure limited to the quantum of the freezing order is improper; allowing such limitation enables selective disclosure and would subvert the purpose of freezing and disclosure orders. |
The court cited Cockerill J to reject the Defendants' core submission that disclosure should be limited to amounts near the claim value, reinforcing that disclosure should not be restricted in that way. |
| Energy Venture Partners Ltd v Malabu Oil and Gas Limited [2014] EWCA Civ 1295; [2015] 1 WLR 2309 |
Principles for fortification: applicant for fortification must show a good arguable case of likely loss and an intelligent estimate of that loss; requirements are interlocutory and do not demand proof on the balance of probabilities. |
The court applied these principles to conclude an increased fortification was appropriate, using the Defendants' costs budget as the basis for an intelligent estimate. |
| PJSC National Bank Trust v Mints [2023] EWCA Civ 1132; [2024] KB 559 |
Designation under sanctions regimes does not necessarily impinge a sanctioned party's right to access the courts to obtain relief. |
The court noted this authority to observe that designation of the Plaintiff did not prevent access to the court, while recognising licensing constraints on payments. |
| SCF Finance Co v Masri [1985] 1 WLR 876 |
Where assets appearing to belong to a third party are included in a Mareva injunction, the court should not discharge the injunction on the third party's unsupported say‑so; the court may order inquiry or trial of the issue. |
The court relied on Lloyd LJ's principles to justify an inquiry/trial of a preliminary issue on whether the Property is an asset of the Defendants rather than summarily removing references to the third party. |
| Lemos v Lemos [2016] EWCA Civ 1181; [2017] 1 P & CR 12 |
The "good reason to suppose" test for including third‑party assets corresponds to a "good arguable case" and does not require balance of probabilities satisfaction. |
The court used this formulation to assess whether there was a good arguable case that the Property fell within the WFO's wide definition of the Defendants' assets, supporting a preliminary issue trial. |
| Jirehouse Capital v Beller [2008] EWHC 725 (Ch) |
Summarised in connection with fortification principles: an intelligent estimate of likely loss is required and the applicant must show a sufficient level of risk to require fortification. |
Quoted within the Energy Venture Partners passage and applied in the court's assessment of the appropriate fortified amount. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Judge addressed each contested issue in turn, applying established principles and the evidence before the Court.
1. Threshold for disclosure
The WFO initially required disclosure of assets >£5,000; there was an interim variation to £25,000 pending resolution. The Defendants argued a higher threshold was necessary as disclosure below £25,000 is burdensome and disproportionate in a high‑value commercial claim. The Plaintiff countered that £5,000 is a common and proportionate threshold, that there are concerns about omissions and discrepancies in the Defendants' lists, and that disclosure is essential to policing the injunction. The Court reviewed authorities establishing the purpose of disclosure (including JSC BTA Bank v Solodchenko and PJSC Tatneft v Bogolyubov) and concluded the Defendants had not demonstrated with particularity the nature or extent of any burden, logistical difficulties, or the number of assets in the £5,000–£25,000 band. The Court found the disclosure order ancillary to the freezing order and not limited to assets up to the frozen sum; balancing purpose against prejudice, the Judge was not satisfied the order was unfairly burdensome and dismissed the application to increase the threshold.
2. Fortification of the cross‑undertaking
The Plaintiff had given a cross‑undertaking with a fortification of £100,000 held in a Barclays account, but the Plaintiff is designated under sanctions regimes and requires licences to make payments. The Defendants sought increase to £500,000 and payment into Court to prompt licence applications and provide effective security. The Plaintiff opposed departure from Judge Bright's arrangement, citing complexity and the need for licences for both payments into and out of Court. Applying the fortification principles from Energy Venture Partners (and related authorities), and having regard to the Defendants' costs budget, the Court concluded an increased fortified amount of £500,000 was appropriate. The Court further directed that the £500,000 be paid into Court and that the Plaintiff apply now for the appropriate sanctions licences, reasoning that an earlier licence application reduces delay for any future payment out and that payment into Court gives the Court control and is not disproportionate to the Plaintiff.
3. References to the third party individual, Company F and the Property
The WFO defined "assets" widely, including assets in which a respondent has legal, beneficial or other interest or power to dispose of indirectly. The third party individual and Company F asserted no ownership or control of the Property and provided affidavit evidence (including from a property manager and a trustee company) that the Defendants reside under arrangements involving third parties (companies such as Company G and Company H) and that beneficial owners are distinct. The Plaintiff relied on evidence suggesting management/control links and on discrepancies (including dissolution of an entity cited as tenant) to infer a potential link to the Defendants. Applying the principles in SCF Finance Co v Masri and Lemos v Lemos, the Court found there was a "good reason to suppose" (a good arguable case) that the Property might be within the WFO's scope, and also that the third party had a good arguable case of non‑ownership. Given unresolved and material factual questions (including beneficial ownership and the tenancy/management arrangements), the Judge declined to remove the references summarily and directed an inquiry by trial of a preliminary issue on whether the Property is an asset of the Defendants, reserving directions for that trial and noting an application by the third party about conditional licensing/costs would be considered when directions are set.
Holding and Implications
Holding:
- DISMISSED: The Defendants' application to increase the asset disclosure threshold above £5,000 is dismissed.
- ALLOWED (in part): The Defendants' application to amend the cross‑undertaking is allowed so that the fortified amount is increased to £500,000 and that sum is to be paid into Court, subject to the Plaintiff obtaining any necessary sanctions licences.
- DISMISSED (summary): The third party individual's application to remove references to the third party, Company F and the Property from the WFO is dismissed, but the Court directed that the issue be determined at a trial of a preliminary issue.
Implications: The immediate practical consequences are that the Plaintiff must take steps to secure £500,000 in the Court Funds and apply for the required sanctions licences; the WFO remains in force with disclosure at the original £5,000 threshold; and ownership/control of the Property will be determined at a preliminary trial. The decision applies established authorities to the facts and does not purport to create new legal precedent; it implements existing principles on disclosure, fortification and third‑party challenges to freezing orders.