JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & Ors [2009] EWCA Civ 1125 (27 October 2009)

JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & Ors [2009] EWCA Civ 1125 (27 October 2009)

The judge was entitled to order disclosure of assets at the interlocutory stage because the risk of prejudice to the claimants from delay outweighed the risk to the defendants, especially given undertakings and the concession that disclosure would be limited to solicitors and counsel. The court has discretion regarding privilege against self-incrimination in foreign proceedings, and the defendants had not established grounds to defer disclosure. The questions were within the legitimate scope of asset tracing.

Citation
[2009] EWCA Civ 1125
Parties
Claimant/respondent: JSC BTA Bank; Defendants/appellants: Ablyazov & Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Interlocutory Appeal Against Asset Disclosure Orders Supporting a Freezing Injunction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Asset Disclosure, Privilege Against Self Incrimination, Fraud, Interlocutory Relief
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Freezing Injunctions Asset Disclosure Privilege Against Self Incrimination Fraud Interlocutory Relief

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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JSC BTA Bank

Claimant/respondent

Ablyazov & Others

Defendants/appellants

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Interlocutory Appeal Against Asset Disclosure Orders Supporting a Freezing Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in ordering asset disclosure pending a challenge to a freezing injunction, given the risk of self-incrimination in foreign criminal proceedings and insufficient time for defendants to claim privilege
  2. 2 Whether the disclosure questions exceeded the scope of locating and preserving assets

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to order disclosure of assets at the interlocutory stage because the risk of prejudice to the claimants from delay outweighed the risk to the defendants, especially given undertakings and the concession that disclosure would be limited to solicitors and counsel. The court has discretion regarding privilege against self-incrimination in foreign proceedings, and the defendants had not established grounds to defer disclosure. The questions were within the legitimate scope of asset tracing.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Disclosure of asset lists to claimants' solicitors and counsel only, with further restriction to those directly concerned with the case
  • Schedule C questions approved as legitimate for asset tracing