On 20 March 2026, the Commercial Court (HHJ Pelling KC) handed down judgment in BSADE v Kam [2026] EWHC 837 (Comm) following the latest application within proceedings to recognise and enforce a HK$220m judgment. Arnold Ayoo succeeded in obtaining an unless order, with indemnity costs, following the non-disclosure of assets caught by a freezing order.

In order to aid the Part 7 recognition and enforcement proceedings, a freezing injunction (granted under s.25 CJJA 1982 and CPR Part 8) had been ordered. As usual, this required asset disclosure. The Defendant (“D”) did not comply. The Claimant (“C”) sought an order that unless D provided asset disclosure within 7 days, she be debarred from further defending the Part 7 enforcement proceedings – and that judgment be entered immediately.

D resisted the order on a number of bases, including that it was inappropriate to make an unless order because: (i) D had permission to appeal against the freezing order (to be heard by the Court of Appeal on 23 April 2026); (ii) there was a pending anti-suit injunction in Hong Kong (which sought the discontinuance of the English freezing order) (iii) it was improper to make a debarring order in the Part 7 enforcement proceedings arising from a default in the Part 8 freezing injunction proceedings.

HHJ Pelling KC dismissed these arguments and granted the order, as well as awarding indemnity costs. In doing so, he found that:

(1) The court clearly had jurisdiction to make an order which debars a defendant from defending a substantive claim following breach of a freezing order in related proceedings [19].

(2) The Commercial Court (Andrew Baker J) had already refused the defendant’s application to vary the freezing order and defer asset disclosure after determination of the Hong Kong Court anti-suit injunction and the English appeal. Andrew Baker J did so on the basis that a pending application is not a reason for delaying asset disclosure. In most cases, the prejudice to a defendant of having to give asset disclosure, if ultimately the freezing order is set aside, will be outweighed by the prejudice to the claimant in not being able to police the order effectively if the order is not set aside. That is all the stronger where the application is concerned with the enforcement of a final judgment [16].

(3) On the facts of this case, there was a long and profoundly unsatisfactory history of delay, evasion and defiance by the defendant, both in these proceedings and in Hong Kong. In essence that history disclosed a plain risk of dissipation of assets by moving them [17].

(4) There was nothing of substance in the point that the freezing order should have been brought under s.37 using the Part 23 procedure. In consequence, there was nothing in the point that the order sought is an order striking out the defence in the Part 7 claim for non-compliance with the order made in the Part 8 proceedings. On proper analysis, the freezing order was being sought and was made in aid of the English enforcement proceedings [18].

Arnold continues to be instructed by Gautam Bhattacharyya, Akshay Sevak and Mahmuda Khamalee at Reed Smith.

Read the judgement in full:BSADE v Kam [2026] EWHC 837 (Comm)