The English Court has handed down judgment, dismissing an application to require a court-appointed representative to discontinue counterclaims with a value in the order of US$1 billion under the Ukrainian matrimonial property regime. The judgment of Mr Justice Richard Smith is available here.

Background

Loudmila Bourlakova and her daughter Veronica (the “Bourlakovas”) pursue claims valued in excess of US$1 billion against the estate of the Monaco-based industrialist Oleg Bourlakov (the “estate”) and third parties alleged to have participated in a scheme to divert Mr Bourlakov’s assets in anticipation of divorce proceedings before the Monegasque courts.

Mr Bourlakov died shortly after proceedings were commenced against him. Because Mr Bourlakov had no real connection to this jurisdiction, the English Court appointed Nicholas Jacob of Forsters LLP to represent the interests of the estate in the proceedings under r. 19.12 CPR (as it now is), for the benefit of those who are determined by a foreign court to be entitled to inherit the estate. On behalf of the estate, Mr Jacob is actively defending the claims, pursuing additional claims against third parties, and pursuing counterclaims against the Bourlakovas.

The counterclaims are based on Mrs Bourlakova or third parties under her control holding property as nominee for Mr Bourlakov or, otherwise, subject to Mr Bourlakov’s rights of joint common property under the Ukrainian matrimonial property regime. The counterclaims impugn dealings by Mrs Bourlakova or those third parties with assets in the order of US$1 billion — such as US$616 million settled on the trustee of a Bahamian trust and $256 million transferred to Veronica.

The Bourlakovas applied for a direction to require Mr Jacob to discontinue his pursuit of the Ukrainian law counterclaims and a related defence on the premise that the issues raised should be litigated, exclusively, in the Courts of Monaco or Latvia. The Bourlakovas’ application raised questions of the Bourlakovas’ standing to apply for a direction against a r. 19.12 representative, the jurisdiction of the court over a r. 19.12 representative, and how the court should exercise any jurisdiction it might have in the context of litigation that Mr Justice Richard Smith described as “of vast and international proportion”.

Mr Jacob was represented at the hearing by Thomas Grant KC of Wilberforce and Ryan James Turner of Maitland Chambers instructed by a team at Forsters LLP led by Roberta Harvey and Maryam Oghanna. The wider counsel team includes Josh Lewison of Radcliffe Chambers, Marlena Valles of Blackstone Chambers, and Danielle Carrington of Brick Court Chambers.

Read the judgment in full:Bourlakova v Bourlakov – c. US$1 billion counterclaims to continue before the English Court [2026] EWHC 2293 (Ch)