The court decided not to narrow a worldwide freezing order obtained by Russian lender VTB, although it did acknowledge some of the respondents’ arguments. Syed Rahman of Rahman Ravelli outlines the reasons for the court’s decision and its implications.
The High Court in London upheld key aspects of a worldwide freezing order obtained by sanctioned Russian lender VTB Bank against a husband and wife linked to a $90 million claim in Russia.
But the court also took steps to compel VTB to enhance the financial protection it offers to the respondents by requiring the bank to pay £500,000 into court. The High Court also ordered a further trial to determine whether a Surrey property valued at £16.5 million forms part of the respondents’ assets.
The decision, in VTB Bank v Timur Kuanyshev and another, which was handed down in March by Deputy Judge Peter MacDonald Eggers KC, dealt with three separate challenges brought by the respondents and a third party to an order that had been granted without notice by Mr Justice Bright the previous month.
Case background
The case concerns a claim made in December last year by VTB in Russia against Timur Kuanyshev and Evgeny Shlenskikh. The claim related to guarantees said to have been given in July 2024 in support of lending to oil company Pechoraneftegaz JSC.
VTB claimed that the borrower defaulted in April 2025 under a 2019 facility agreement, failed to comply with later assurances they made regarding repayment, and presented false statements and forged documents relating to the debt.
Freezing orders were obtained by VTB in 2025; first in Russia and then in the Dubai International Financial Centre. In February 2026, Mr Justice Bright granted a without notice worldwide freezing order in England against Mr Kuanyshev and his wife, Alfiya Askar.
Issues
At the return hearing, at the High Court, the parties agreed that the order should remain in force while the respondents prepared an application to set it aside.
But three discrete issues were left for the court to determine at the return hearing:
Disclosure threshold: The respondents attempted to raise the threshold for disclosing their assets under the order from £5,000 to £25,000; arguing that identifying lower-value items was unnecessary given the size of the claim and that higher-value assets had been disclosed. VTB argued against this, saying the lower threshold was standard and effective practice and that there were gaps and inconsistencies in the respondents’ existing disclosure.
The judge refused to vary the order, stating the purpose of the disclosure requirement is to ensure proper monitoring and enforcement of the order and that the £5,000 threshold created no difficulties for the respondents.
Payment into court: The level of financial protection VTB would have to provide if it is later shown that the freezing order should not have been granted had to be considered. As VTB is a sanctioned entity, it cannot freely access its funds and would require licences before making payments. The respondents argued that the existing arrangement - which involved £100,000 being held in a bank account - did not provide adequate financial protection and asked for £500,000 to be paid into court. VTB argued that this had been considered when the order was granted.
The judge found there was a proper basis for increasing the amount, stated that £500,000 was an appropriate amount, and directed it be paid into court. The judge said it was preferable to address any licensing issues now and that funds held by the court would provide clearer and more reliable protection.
The Surrey mansion: An application had been made by Christopher Clayton, acting for himself and for companies within the Alpha Wealth Group, to remove references to himself, those companies and a £16.5 million property (where the respondents live) from the order.
Mr Clayton said neither he nor the companies held assets for the respondents and that the property was occupied under a commercial tenancy linked to Mr Kuanyshev’s brother. But VTB argued that there was the question of whether the property fell within the order, which extends to assets controlled or enjoyed by the respondents. The judge concluded that the issue could not be resolved on the material before him and directed that there should be a trial of a preliminary issue to determine whether the property is to be treated as an asset of the respondents - assuming the freezing order remains in force following the anticipated set-aside application.
Conclusion
While all parties could argue that they obtained something from the hearing, the matter is only likely to be concluded if and when the respondents’ proposed application to set aside the order is heard.
The court’s refusal to increase the disclosure threshold reinforces the principle that disclosure obligations under freezing orders are intended to be comprehensive rather than a proportionate value of the claim. The court recognised that smaller assets can assist in tracing wealth, identifying patterns of ownership and testing the accuracy of a respondent’s disclosure. Applicants are likely to rely on this decision when resisting attempts by respondents to dilute disclosure obligations.
This case reinforces the High Court’s generally robust approach to worldwide freezing orders. The decision is also relevant in situations where the applicant is subject to UK sanctions that affect their ability to satisfy cross-undertaking in damages. The decision illustrates that the English courts remain supportive of worldwide freezing orders as a means of preserving assets, while continuing to balance that with appropriate safeguards for respondents.
Parties seeking to vary or discharge such orders should be prepared to demonstrate real prejudice rather than simply argue that standard provisions are disproportionate. Equally, applicants - particularly those subject to sanctions - should anticipate greater scrutiny of the adequacy of their cross-undertaking in damages and consider at the early stages whether additional security may be required.
