Overview
Applications to vary worldwide freezing orders (“WFOs”) often turn on detailed, fact‑specific issues. A recent Commercial Court decision provides guidance on (i) dealing with sanctioned claimants, (ii) the threshold for asset disclosure, and (iii) applications to exclude assets or third parties from the scope of a WFO.
In VTB Bank PJSC v Kuanyshev & Anor [2026] EWHC 591, Deputy Judge Peter MacDonald Eggers KC considered three applications: (i) to increase the threshold for asset disclosure from £5,000 to £25,000; (ii) to increase the protection offered by the claimant’s cross-undertaking in damages; and (iii) an application by a third party to remove references in the freezing order to him and certain assets.
The judgment underlines the need for clear and cogent evidence when seeking to vary arrangements made at the without‑notice stage. It also demonstrates the court’s willingness to examine disputed factual issues where there is a real question as to whether assets fall within the scope of a WFO.
Case Summary
VTB Bank PJSC (“VTB”) obtained a worldwide freezing order (“WFO”) in early February 2026 over the assets of husband and wife, Mr Kuanyshev and Mrs Askar, who reside in England (the “Respondents”). The WFO relates to a claim worth approximately $90 million brought by VTB against Mr Kuanyshev and Mr Shlenskikh in Russia on 2 December 2025, in connection with the advance of funds to a Russian oil extracting company.
At the return date hearing on 27 February 2026, there were three contested issues for determination:
- Whether the WFO should be varied to increase the asset disclosure threshold from £5,000 to £25,000 (dismissed).
- Whether the fortification of the cross-undertaking given by VTB should be increased and paid into Court in circumstances where VTB is a sanctioned entity (allowed, subject to licences being obtained).
- Whether references to a property and the name of a third party who holds that property on trust for undisclosed beneficial owners should be removed from the WFO (to be determined at a trial of a preliminary issue).
Threshold for asset disclosure
The Respondents sought to increase the asset disclosure threshold from £5,000 to £25,000 on the basis it was onerous and oppressive to identify all their assets, particularly personal chattel, worth more than £5,000. They also submitted that they had disclosed assets with an estimated value of $200 million, which they said would be sufficient to satisfy any judgment in VTB’s favour.
VTB submitted that the threshold should be maintained because £5,000 is commonly applied in English worldwide freezing orders and the Respondents had provided no real explanation for the burden that would be placed upon them. They also submitted that there were grounds to doubt the reliability of the asset disclosure provided and noted the discrepancy between the lavish lifestyle the Respondents enjoyed and the assets they had disclosed.
The judge dismissed the application, noting that the Court will not limit asset disclosure to “the maximum sum covered by the freezing order” as that would allow the respondents to “cherry pick” and disclose the most difficult assets to enforce against, undermining the purpose of a WFO. While the court may vary the minimum disclosure threshold, this requires evidence that the existing threshold is oppressive and consideration of whether any increase would prejudice the effective operation and policing of the WFO. In this case, the Respondents failed to provide evidence of the number or nature of assets falling within the disputed range, or of the specific difficulties said to arise in valuing them.
Fortification of the cross-undertaking
The second issue concerned the Respondents’ request for an increase in the protections offered by the cross-undertaking, given VTB’s status as a sanctioned entity. The Respondents sought: (i) an increase in the cross‑undertaking from £100,000 to £500,000 and (ii) payment of that sum into court.
VTB had undertaken to “ring-fence” £100,000 in a UK bank account to fortify the cross-undertaking. However, as a sanctioned entity, VTB would be unable to deal with its funds without a licence from OFSI, which it was said could take between 6 weeks to 18 months. The Respondents submitted that the undertaking in its current form did not offer sufficient protection and requested an increase having regard to their cost budget.
The judge accepted the Respondents’ application. He emphasised that the purpose of a cross-undertaking is to protect the respondent against loss if a freezing order should not have been made. In considering the application, the judge noted that it was a matter for him having heard the parties’ submissions, and not whether the judge at the without notice stage would have decided the application in a particular way.
Citing Energy Venture Partners Ltd v Malabu Oil and Gas Limited [2014] EWCA Civ 1295, the judge held that it was appropriate to increase the fortified amount to £500,000, to reflect the Respondents’ cost budget. He also ordered that the sum be paid into court, given the potential delay in obtaining an OFSI licence and the fact that VTB would not suffer substantial prejudice, as the funds were intended to be ring‑fenced in any event.
References to third parties in the WFO
The third issue arose from an application by a third party, Mr Clayton, to remove references in the WFO to himself, associated entities, and a property known as St Theodore (valued at approximately £16.5 million) which the Respondents occupied. Mr Clayton argued that the assets did not fall within the scope of the WFO, asserting that the property belonged to unconnected beneficial owners. Evidence was also adduced that a tenancy agreement was entered into by third-party companies (which were owned by Mr Kuanyshev’s brother).
VTB contended that it was reasonable to infer that Mr Clayton managed the interest in St Theodore for the ultimate benefit of the Respondents. It pointed to inconsistencies in the evidence, including the fact that a company said to be party to the tenancy agreement had been dissolved in November 2025 but nevertheless entered into the agreement in January 2026. VTB also raised concerns about the absence of supporting documents.
The judge declined to grant the application at the return date. Instead, he directed that the issue be determined at a trial of a preliminary issue. He considered that there was a “good reason to suppose” that St Theodore might fall within the definition of assets under the WFO, given the unanswered questions surrounding the Respondents’ interests and identity of the beneficial owners. However, he also accepted that Mr Clayton and the Respondents had a good arguable case that St Theodore was not an asset of the Respondents.
Comment
The decision provides practical guidance on applications to vary WFOs, particularly where the claimant is a sanctioned entity. It illustrates the evidential burden on parties seeking to amend orders made without notice and confirms that the court will engage closely with factual disputes where the scope of a freezing order is contested.
For further information, please email the authors or your usual CMS contact.
