This litigation concerns a dispute between Orlov and Tugushev over a stake in the Norebo Group, an international fishing business. In July 2018, a Worldwide Freezing Order (WFO) against Orlov's assets was made without notice. In Tugushev v Orlov  EWHC 2031 (Comm), Orlov successfully challenged the WFO on the basis that Tugushev had not complied with his duty of disclosure to the Court in the without notice application. There was no credible risk of Orlov dissipating his assets so the application was not regranted.
In without notice applications the Court only hears one side of an issue. To ensure fairness there is a duty on the applicant of full and frank disclosure of all material facts. Orlov argued that Tugushev failed to disclose a number of material facts in his without notice application. All but one of the allegations were dismissed. The one that Orlov succeeded on was Tugushev's failure to disclose documents that suggested he had divested himself of his shares in AA, the predecessor to Norebo, in 2003 prior to taking public office in Russia. This evidence related to a core piece of Orlov's defence. Tugushev's failure to investigate whether the documents existed justified discharge of the WFO.
Regarding whether there is a real risk of dissipation so as to justify continuation of the WFO, the court stressed that the risk is not to be inferred lightly and that there must be solid evidence of the risk of dissipation. Each case is fact specific and relevant factors must be looked at cumulatively. Here, the majority of Orlov's assets were his shareholding in the Norebo. The court considered that there was no credible risk of Orlov reducing his shareholding to defeat any judgment in Tugushev's favour.
Finally, the court emphasised that Tugushev could reapply for relief in the form of a freezing order if there were material new developments identifying a risk of dissipation.
The judgment can be found here.