16.07.2025
PCB Byrne has successfully defended committal proceedings brought in respect of an alleged breach of a worldwide freezing order.
The Claimant in NBT v Elena Pishchulina obtained a worldwide freezing order in February 2016 in support of civil proceedings brought against Mr Fetisov, including against his wife, Ms Pishchulina. The freezing order covered, in part, a property owned by Ms Pishchulina in Bali. The claim against the Bali property was not pursued at trial, with judgment handed down on 23 January 2020, and it was indicated that the freezing order would be discharged in respect of the Bali property at an upcoming consequentials hearing on 27 February 2020.
In between the handing down of judgment and the consequentials hearing, Ms Pishchulina entered into a sale agreement for the Bali property, with transfer of ownership to take place following the discharge of the freezing order. On being made aware of the sale agreement in September 2024, NBT made an application for contempt against Ms Pishchulina. NBT claimed that the freezing order continued in effect against Ms Pishchulina in the period between the handing down of judgment and the consequentials hearing.
It was argued by NBT that it had a legitimate interest in drawing the breach of the freezing order to the Court’s attention by means of the committal application so as to deter future breaches by Ms Pishchulina and others involved in Mr Fetisov’s separate bankruptcy proceedings. Counsel for Ms Pishchulina argued that there was no breach and, in the alternative, if there had been a breach it was not a serious breach but a technical one.
In its judgment, the Court referred to the requirement that a committal application must be proportionate to the conduct alleged, with the authorities referring to the function of a committal application as being to bring to the court’s attention a serious rather than purely technical breach. The Court also referred to the overriding objective under the Civil Procedure Rules that cases are dealt with justly and at proportionate cost.
In this case, the Court considered it would be disproportionate to allow the matter to proceed further, and that to proceed further would require an inappropriate share of the Court’s resources. It was found that continuation of the matter would do nothing to promote compliance with the orders and that the matter was not one that would need or attract punishment or the Court’s coercive powers. From the moment of the original judgment, NBT had no underlying basis on which to retain the Bali property within the worldwide freezing order and it was for NBT to take steps to remove the Order concerning the Bali property from the freezing order.
The judgment emphasises the need for contempt applications to address breaches of orders which are serious and not merely technical, as well as the Court’s increasing lack of tolerance for applications which do not meet these criteria.
Ben Davies (partner) and Olivia Taylor (associate) of PCB Byrne instructed James Willan KC and Adam Board of Essex Court Chambers.
back to news and insights