Key takeaway

Bourlakova and others v Bourlakov and others [2025] EWHC 3085 (Ch) shows that where a parallel arbitration appears bogus or potentially collusive and may threaten assets protected by an English court undertaking or freezing order, the High Court can order targeted disclosure of arbitration materials so that the protected assets can be monitored before an award is made or enforced.

When can an English court look behind a confidential arbitration?

When a “bogus” Moscow arbitration threatened to drain a defendant’s assets, the English High Court did something it almost never does: it pulled back the curtain.

Arbitration has long enjoyed a reputation as the strong, silent type of dispute resolution confidential by design and largely left alone by national courts. A November 2025 decision from the English High Court is a good reminder that English judges are not without a nose for what is happening behind closed doors, and that when the smell becomes sufficiently pungent, they will act.

The case is Bourlakova and others v Bourlakov and others [2025] EWHC 3085 (Ch), a high-value fraud dispute between Mrs Bourlakova and her children against the estate of her late husband, his relatives, and various business associates. One defendant, Edelweiss, had given the English court an undertaking not to dispose of its assets. Courts take such undertakings seriously. Breach one, and contempt of court beckons.

Why did the Moscow arbitration matter?

Word then reached the Bourlakovas, through an anonymous source, that Edelweiss was involved in a Moscow arbitration under the ICAC Rules, in which a Mr Ploshchenko was seeking just over $101 million. The timing was suspicious. The parties involved were suspicious. And an award of that size, if enforced under the New York Convention, could strip out roughly 10% of Edelweiss’s assets, the very assets the undertaking was meant to protect.

“A bogus and potentially collusive arbitration” - the court’s description, not ours. Though we might have used similar language.

For related reading on court protection in arbitration-related asset disputes, see our article on third-party asset protection in London arbitration.

What happens when arbitral confidentiality meets asset protection?

Edelweiss leaned heavily on arbitral confidentiality. Rule 46 of the ICAC Rules imposes confidentiality on the parties, and English courts have generally respected foreign arbitrations as someone else’s proceedings. Edelweiss also argued there was no risk of dissipation, it was defending the arbitration, not embracing it, and any award would be enforced through a court process rather than voluntary asset-stripping.

The court was not persuaded. Mr Andrew de Mestre KC, sitting as a Deputy Judge, ordered Edelweiss to provide the Bourlakovas with pleadings, evidence, procedural orders, and hearing transcripts from the Moscow arbitration. Three reasons drove the decision.

Why was disclosure ordered despite arbitral confidentiality?

First, risk to assets: court-ordered enforcement is still enforcement. Where assets protected by an undertaking face a material threat, however that threat arrives, disclosure to enable policing of the undertaking is justified. The bogus character of the arbitration, its suspicious timing, and the scale of the claim were compelling.

Second, practical utility: disclosure now allows protective steps to be taken while the arbitration is live, rather than scrambling after an award is issued and ready to be enforced internationally. Prevention, the court recognised, is considerably more useful than cure.

Third, and most significantly, confidentiality: the court accepted that ICAC confidentiality applied, but held it was not a “sufficiently countervailing factor.” Crucially, the judge applied the principle from recent English authorities that where there is no real risk of criminal prosecution for breaching arbitral confidentiality, the scales may tip in favour of disclosure. A risk of civil liability or regulatory sanction will not necessarily outweigh the interest in protecting court-ordered protections. The court also noted that ICAC confidentiality is not absolute, documents can be deployed to advance a party’s own case.

Read our article on third-party document disclosure in arbitration for another example of the English court considering the limits of court intervention in arbitration-related disclosure.

What is the impact of Bourlakova v Bourlakov?

Three practical points follow from this decision. Confidentiality is not a trump card: where no real risk of criminal prosecution exists for breaching arbitral confidentiality, an English court may order disclosure to protect assets subject to a freezing order or undertaking. The relevant threshold is a “real risk” of dissipation and that risk need not be voluntary; enforcement through a foreign court is sufficient.

Where there is evidence of sham or collusive proceedings, that will carry considerable weight when the court balances these competing considerations. Above all, the time to act is while the arbitration is still running disclosure sought at that stage is far more useful than damage limitation after an award has been issued and is ready to be enforced.

We discuss related issues of award enforcement in our article on enforcing arbitration awards with final charging orders.

What this means for you

This decision should not be read as open season on arbitral confidentiality. The judge stressed that the outcome turned on the particular, and highly unusual facts. But it does confirm that English courts retain a broad discretion to grant targeted ancillary relief, and that arbitral confidentiality, however venerable, is not immune from that discretion.

For clients involved in complex multi-jurisdictional disputes where assets are subject to freezing orders or undertakings, the message is clear: if you suspect a parallel process is being used to circumvent English court protections, take advice sooner rather than later. As this case demonstrates, waiting for the award is not your only option.

Barnes Law’s Arbitration team advises clients on arbitral confidentiality, arbitration-related disclosure, interim relief, worldwide freezing orders, enforcement strategy and complex cross-border arbitration disputes. For more information, please contact our Arbitration lawyers to discuss how we can support you.

Written by Barnes Law Managing Partner Yulia Barnes.