Bourlakova & Ors v Bourlakov & Ors [2024] EWHC 765 (Ch) (05 April 2024)

Bourlakova & Ors v Bourlakov & Ors [2024] EWHC 765 (Ch) (05 April 2024)

The court held that, while the claimants had offered undertakings and steps to protect confidential information, the full extent of dissemination and use of the defendants' confidential and privileged information remained unclear. Given the seriousness of the acquisition and the need for transparency, the court ordered delivery up and destruction of confidential information (with limited exceptions), affidavits of compliance, and restrictions on use, but declined to grant the full breadth of relief sought by the defendants at this stage. The proprietary injunction application was adjourned pending compliance and further directions.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 765 (Ch)
Parties
Claimants: Loudmila Bourlakova & Ors; Defendants: Oleg Bourlakov & Ors; Defendant: Mr Anufriev (6th Defendant); Defendants: Kazakovs (7th and 8th Defendants); Defendant: Edelweiss (12th Defendant)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Applications in Civil Fraud Proceedings / Ruling on Interim Injunction and Confidentiality Applications
Outcome
Interim relief granted in part; confidentiality orders made; injunction application adjourned for compliance and further directions.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Asset Freezing, Proprietary Relief, Breach of Confidence, Privilege, Clean Hands Doctrine
Civil Procedure Equity and Trusts Fraud Confidentiality Interim Injunctions Asset Freezing Proprietary Relief Breach of Confidence +2 more

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Loudmila Bourlakova & Ors

Claimants

Oleg Bourlakov & Ors

Defendants

Mr Anufriev (6th Defendant)

Defendant

Kazakovs (7th and 8th Defendants)

Defendants

Edelweiss (12th Defendant)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Applications in Civil Fraud Proceedings / Ruling on Interim Injunction and Confidentiality Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interim proprietary and/or freezing injunctions should be granted against certain defendants and entities
  2. 2 Whether the claimants should be required to deliver up and destroy confidential and privileged information obtained from the defendants
  3. 3 Whether the claimants or their agents unlawfully obtained confidential information and the consequences thereof

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, while the claimants had offered undertakings and steps to protect confidential information, the full extent of dissemination and use of the defendants' confidential and privileged information remained unclear. Given the seriousness of the acquisition and the need for transparency, the court ordered delivery up and destruction of confidential information (with limited exceptions), affidavits of compliance, and restrictions on use, but declined to grant the full breadth of relief sought by the defendants at this stage. The proprietary injunction application was adjourned pending compliance and further directions.

Court Disposition

Interim relief granted in part; confidentiality orders made; injunction application adjourned for compliance and further directions.

Orders

  • Claimants to deliver up and destroy confidential information (excluding CT report) in their possession or control and that of their lawyers and family members, with exceptions for evidential purposes.
  • Claimants to instruct investigators to deliver up and destroy confidential information, with agreement to pay reasonable costs.