Arnold Ayoo, acting for the Claimant (C), successfully resisted the Defendant’s (D) application to suspend asset disclosure under a freezing injunction, pending challenges to the freezing injunction which included an anti-suit injunction in Hong Kong and an appeal to the English Court of Appeal (“the Challenges”). 

As an alternative argument, D requested that disclosure be given to her own solicitors (but withheld from C) pending the Challenges. Mr Justice Andrew Baker rejected both arguments and refused the application.

Background

C’s case in the underlying Hong Kong proceedings was that D fraudulently induced it into transferring HK$220,548,682 to entities owned and/or controlled by D or otherwise at her direction. C subsequently obtained judgment (“the HK Judgment”). In England, C issued a Part 7 Claim for recognition and enforcement of the HK Judgment, allied with a Part 8 Claim for a s.25 CJJA freezing order. Arnold successfully obtained the freezing order (c.£30m) at a without notice hearing before Knowles J and resisted D’s discharge application before Butcher J, who continued the order. The orders required asset disclosure in April 2025.

The application

However, D did not provide asset disclosure but instead challenged the underlying freezing order. She also applied for a suspension of the asset disclosure provision pending the Challenges. Alternatively, she asked the court to adopt the approach in J&J Snacks Food Corporation & Anor v Ralph Peters & Sons Ltd & Anor [2024] EWHC 3439 (Ch), such that disclosure be provided to her own solicitors but held by them pending determination of the Challenges.

The decision

As to the two main findings:

(1) At [27], Mr Justice Andrew Baker found that the J&J Snacks approach was not suitable because (i) there is a strong prima facie case that D was guilty of a fraud; (ii) there were very real reasons for doubting her trustworthiness as regards compliance with orders of the court; (iii) in view of D’s tactical approach to the litigation generally, the need for effective policing of the freezing order in this case is particularly important (but D’s solicitors would not notify the banks, trace the monies, or test the disclosure evidence) and (iv) it would be inadequate protection for C.

(2) At [35], the Judge found that the Challenges did not justify a departure from the usual rule which is that a challenge to a freezing order does not suspend the asset disclosure provisions. Indeed, the prejudice to be suffered by D in providing disclosure pursuant to an order which may be set aside was far outweighed by the prejudice suffered by C in receiving no disclosure [34].

Arnold is instructed by Reed Smith LLP.

Read the full judgment: Beijing Songxianghuv Kam [2025] EWHC 3068 (Comm)