JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & Anor (Rev 1)

JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & Anor (Rev 1)

The court found that the sealed order contained an accidental change not considered by the court or parties, and should be corrected to reflect the original order. However, given the particular risk of dissipation and the nature of the defendants' overseas assets held indirectly, the court concluded that it was just and convenient to amend the freezing order to restrict dealing with overseas assets when assets in England and Wales fall below the maximum sum, subject to the defendants' right to apply for variation if prejudice arises.

Parties
Claimant: JSC BTA Bank; First Defendant: Mukhtar Ablyazov; Second Defendant: Roman Solodchenko; Third Defendant: Zhakslyk 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
11 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Commercial Freezing Injunction / Post Interlocutory Applications to Correct And/or Vary Freezing Order
Outcome
Applications granted in part
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Mareva Injunctions, Variation of Court Orders, Worldwide Freezing Orders, Jurisdiction to Amend Orders
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Freezing Injunctions Mareva Injunctions Variation of Court Orders Worldwide Freezing Orders Jurisdiction to Amend Orders

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JSC BTA Bank

Claimant

Mukhtar Ablyazov

First Defendant

Roman Solodchenko

Second Defendant

Zhakslyk 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 Freezing Injunction / Post Interlocutory Applications to Correct And/or Vary Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should correct or vary a freezing order under CPR 40.12 or CPR 3.1(7) due to an accidental slip or omission
  2. 2 Whether the standard form of worldwide freezing order should be amended to restrict dealing with overseas assets when assets in England and Wales fall below the maximum sum
  3. 3 Whether the amended form of order sought by the claimant is consistent with the principles underlying freezing injunctions

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the sealed order contained an accidental change not considered by the court or parties, and should be corrected to reflect the original order. However, given the particular risk of dissipation and the nature of the defendants' overseas assets held indirectly, the court concluded that it was just and convenient to amend the freezing order to restrict dealing with overseas assets when assets in England and Wales fall below the maximum sum, subject to the defendants' right to apply for variation if prejudice arises.

Court Disposition

Applications granted in part

Orders

  • The order sealed on 20 November 2009 is to be corrected or varied so that paragraph 6 repeats paragraph 7 of the original freezing order.
  • Subject to counsel providing a satisfactory redraft, the freezing order (as corrected and varied) will be further varied to give effect to the principle raised by the claimant.