Policing a freezing order: disclosure, ‘unless’ orders and challenges to jurisdiction

In JSC BTA Bank v Mukhtar Ablyazov & others EWHC 2219 (QB), the High Court considered whether failure to comply with a freezing order entitled it to strike out the defence and find for the claimant even while the respondents sought to challenge jurisdiction. Charlotte Ovans of Field Fisher Waterhouse examines the ruling.

Charlotte Ovans (+44 (0)20 7861 6734, charlotte.ovans@ffw.com) is a solicitor in the fraud and asset tracing team at Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP.

Freezing orders have been described as the nuclear weapons of the English court’s armoury against fraud. They have the power to halt the dissipation of a fraudster’s assets before enforcement of a judgment. Freezing orders usually include disclosure provisions that require a respondent to give details of his assets and the location of misappropriated assets. Disclosure, when properly made, can be the key to policing a freezing order and establishing proprietary claims.