High Court finds freezing order claimants did not fairly present service gateway issue

On 30 January 2026 the High Court examined a worldwide freezing order made against Mrs Shahena Bleakley and King Street Capital SL, finding the claimants fell short on some points of presentation.

In [2026] EWHC 153 (KB), handed down on 30 January 2026, the High Court of Justice, King's Bench Division (Commercial Court), considered the adjourned return date of a worldwide freezing order (WFO).

Mr Benjamin Gilbert and his company BG Projects Limited lent money to Broadoak between 2017 and 2019. Broadoak did not repay. The claimants issued their claim on 14 November 2023 and obtained judgment, partly in default and partly after a June 2025 trial that Broadoak did not attend. About £600,000 has been recovered, leaving a judgment debt of about £4.2m with interest and costs.

The claimants say Broadoak received about £7m that cannot be accounted for, and that large sums went to Mr Jamie Bleakley, its majority shareholder and principal director, and to Mrs Bleakley, to whom he is married, or to King Street Capital SL (KSC), a Spanish company. On 4 August 2025, His Honour Judge Nigel Bird made a WFO against Mrs Bleakley and KSC on the claimants' without-notice application, under the Chabra jurisdiction.

At the adjourned return date, heard on 8 January 2026, the claimants sought to continue the order. The respondents sought its discharge, including on the ground that the claimants breached their duty of fair presentation and full and frank disclosure. They also applied for a declaration that the court does not have, or should not exercise, personal jurisdiction over them.

David Quest KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, dealt with the criticisms ground by ground.

Permission to serve abroad. The judge concluded that the claimants did not fairly present the gateway issue. Their reliance on gateways (10), (11) and (20) was novel and lacked direct support in authority, and some authorities appeared to be against it. Linsen International and AES Ust-Kamenogorsk were relevant and should have been raised with the judge. On gateway (3), the claimants should have made clear that a possible argument had significant support in textbooks and cases.

Appropriate forum. The affidavit and skeleton argument said England and Wales must be "an appropriate forum", whereas the test is that it must be clearly and distinctly the appropriate forum. The judge called this an unfortunate error, but said he could not detect from the transcript that the earlier judge was influenced in any material way by the wording.

Scope of the order. The judge regarded it as fair to cite Yukong v Rendsburg in support of an order over Mrs Bleakley's assets generally. However, the claimants should not have sought a WFO against KSC in the same amount, about £3.9m, without alerting the judge that the evidence was that KSC had received only €140,000.

Terms of the order. The order as first made did not provide for living expenses, although an allowance of £2,500 per month had been discussed at the hearing. The judge said this was an error in producing the final order, corrected reasonably promptly.

Sources

• Benjamin Gilbert & Anor v Broadoak Private Finance Limited [2026] EWHC 153 (KB), High Court of Justice, King's Bench Division, Commercial Court, 30 January 2026: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2026/153