JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & Ors

JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & Ors

The Bank established a good arguable case and a real risk of dissipation of assets by the Defendants. There was no material non-disclosure sufficient to justify discharge of the order. The context of the dispute, including the political background, did not render the order unjust or inappropriate. The Freezing Order is just and convenient and should be continued against all Defendants.

Parties
Claimant: JSC BTA Bank; First Defendant: Mukhtar Ablyazov; Second Defendant: Roman Solodchenko; Third Defendant: Zhaksylik Zharimbetov; Fourth Defendant: Drey Associates Limited; Fifth Defendant: Anthony Edward Thomas Stroud; Sixth Defendant: John Dominic Wilson; Seventh Defendant: Sarah Juliet Wilson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Commercial / Interlocutory Application to Continue Freezing Order
Outcome
Freezing Order continued against all Defendants
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Asset Dissipation, Disclosure Obligations, Non Disclosure, Jurisdiction, Injunctions
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Freezing Orders Asset Dissipation Disclosure Obligations Non Disclosure Jurisdiction Injunctions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JSC BTA Bank

Claimant

Mukhtar Ablyazov

First Defendant

Roman Solodchenko

Second Defendant

Zhaksylik Zharimbetov

Third Defendant

Drey Associates Limited

Fourth Defendant

Anthony Edward Thomas Stroud

Fifth Defendant

John Dominic Wilson

Sixth Defendant

Sarah Juliet Wilson

Seventh Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial / Interlocutory Application to Continue Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Freezing Order against the Defendants should be continued
  2. 2 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets by the Defendants
  3. 3 Whether there was material non-disclosure by the Claimant when obtaining the Freezing Order

Ratio Decidendi

The Bank established a good arguable case and a real risk of dissipation of assets by the Defendants. There was no material non-disclosure sufficient to justify discharge of the order. The context of the dispute, including the political background, did not render the order unjust or inappropriate. The Freezing Order is just and convenient and should be continued against all Defendants.

Court Disposition

Freezing Order continued against all Defendants

Orders

  • The Freezing Order is continued against the First to Seventh Defendants.
  • The restriction on disclosure of asset information to the Bank's counsel and solicitors remains in place.