In <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Bourlakova and others v Bourlakov and others [2025] EWHC 3085 (Ch)</span>, the Chancery Division ordered the disclosure of confidential information relating to a Russian-seated arbitration, notwithstanding the confidentiality obligations arising under the applicable arbitral rules. The court concluded that disclosure was necessary to protect assets that were subject to undertakings given to the English court.
The application arose in the context of complex, multi-jurisdictional proceedings concerning the ownership of assets held by the twelfth defendant, Edelweiss. Earlier in 2025, Richard Smith J granted the first and fourth claimants (the Bourlakovas) a proprietary freezing order over Edelweiss’ assets. That order was subsequently replaced by undertakings given by Edelweiss not to dispose of its assets other than in the ordinary course of business.
Following the giving of those undertakings, the Bourlakovas became aware of a Moscow-seated arbitration commenced against Edelweiss under the International Commercial Arbitration Court (“<span class="news-text_medium">ICAC</span>”) Rules. The arbitration involved claims exceeding USD 101 million. Concerned that the arbitration posed a risk to the effectiveness of the undertakings, the Bourlakovas applied for disclosure of information relating to the arbitration in order to assess what steps might be required to protect their position.
Although Edelweiss accepted that the arbitration was “bogus”, it resisted the disclosure application on the basis that it was actively defending the arbitration claims and that the information sought was confidential under the ICAC Rules. Andrew de Mestre KC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court, ordered disclosure, finding that it was necessary to protect Edelweiss’ assets. In reaching his decision, the court identified a real risk that the arbitration was collusive, having regard to the timing of its commencement, a number of unusual features and the apparent lack of engagement by an individual who was the sole discretionary beneficiary of another party claiming ownership of Edelweiss.
The court also held that disclosure would have clear practical utility. It would enable the Bourlakovas to consider what steps might be taken to preserve their position before any arbitral award was issued. Once an award had been made, it would become significantly more difficult to resist enforcement, given the limited grounds available under the New York Convention.
While the documents sought were likely confidential under the ICAC Rules, the court concluded that this confidentiality was outweighed by the need to protect the assets. Breach of the ICAC Rules did not constitute a criminal offence and any potential penalties were uncertain and limited, particularly as Edelweiss would be complying with a court order and was protected by a cross-undertaking in damages from the Bourlakovas.
Edelweiss was ordered to disclose, among other things, the statements of case, evidence and procedural orders from the arbitration and to notify the Bourlakovas of any award or enforcement action. The use of the disclosed information was strictly limited to steps taken to preserve or protect Edelweiss’ assets.
