Akhmedova v Akhmedov & Ors

Akhmedova v Akhmedov & Ors

Given the continued risk of asset dissipation and evasion by the First Respondent, and the inadequacy of the existing freezing orders to capture all assets, the court found it necessary to vary and extend the freezing orders to cover the totality of the First Respondent's assets and to modify the standard form to prevent circumvention. The threshold for variation was met due to changed circumstances and ongoing risk to enforcement.

Parties
Applicant: Tatiana Akhmedova; First Respondent: Farkhad Akhmedov; Second Respondent: Woodblade Limited; Third Respondent: Cotor Investment SA; Fourth Respondent: Qubo 1 Establishment; Fifth Respondent: Qubo 2 Establishment; Sixth Respondent: Straight Establishment; Seventh Respondent: Avenger Assets Corporation; Eighth Respondent: Counselor Trust Reg.; Ninth Respondent: Sobaldo Establishment; Tenth Respondent: Temur Akhmedov
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Financial Remedy Application (variation of Freezing Order) / Interlocutory Application for Variation of Freezing Orders
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Enforcement of Judgments, Asset Dissipation, Financial Remedies on Divorce
Family Law Civil Procedure Freezing Orders Enforcement of Judgments Asset Dissipation Financial Remedies on Divorce

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

Parties

Tatiana Akhmedova

Applicant

Farkhad Akhmedov

First Respondent

Woodblade Limited

Second Respondent

Cotor Investment SA

Third Respondent

Qubo 1 Establishment

Fourth Respondent

Qubo 2 Establishment

Fifth Respondent

Straight Establishment

Sixth Respondent

Avenger Assets Corporation

Seventh Respondent

Counselor Trust Reg.

Eighth Respondent

Sobaldo Establishment

Ninth Respondent

Temur Akhmedov

Tenth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Financial Remedy Application (variation of Freezing Order) / Interlocutory Application for Variation of Freezing Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the freezing orders against the First Respondent should be varied and extended to cover all his assets
  2. 2 Whether the standard form of freezing order should be modified to prevent asset movement to difficult enforcement jurisdictions
  3. 3 Whether alternative service of the order should be permitted

Ratio Decidendi

Given the continued risk of asset dissipation and evasion by the First Respondent, and the inadequacy of the existing freezing orders to capture all assets, the court found it necessary to vary and extend the freezing orders to cover the totality of the First Respondent's assets and to modify the standard form to prevent circumvention. The threshold for variation was met due to changed circumstances and ongoing risk to enforcement.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • The freezing orders against the First Respondent are varied and extended to cover all his assets.
  • The standard form of freezing order is modified to prevent asset movement to jurisdictions where enforcement is difficult.