PSJC Commercial Bank Privatbank v Kolomoisky & Ors [2018] EWHC 482 (Ch)

Judge rules on what must be disclosed by the respondent following the grant of a freezing order

A worldwide freezing order ("WFO") granted against the respondents contained the standard disclosure obligation to inform the applicant in writing "of all his assets exceeding [here, £25,000] in value as at the date of this order, giving the value, location and detail of all such assets." The WFO defined the term "assets" as including a chose in action (broadly, a right to sue another party), although it did not give any guidance as to what had to be provided in relation to a chose in action. The respondents had made various loans and the applicant argued that full disclosure of these had not been given, in particular whether the debtors were likely to be able to repay.

The judge noted that an asset disclosure order should only be made for the purpose of policing, or giving effect to, the WFO and should not go beyond information that is necessary for that purpose. Confidentiality does not entitle the respondent to withhold information. She accepted that the court has jurisdiction to make the order (which might include disclosure of documents), where "such an order is required to enable a claimant, first, to identify the nature and extent of a defendant's interest in assets, and second, to decide whether and, if so, what further steps it should take to protect its position, such steps being an important aspect of its ability to police the freezing order".

The judge refused to order disclosure of loan documents and drew an analogy with details of a bank account: "In such a...