Background
Loudmila Bourlakova and the other claimants alleged that, following the breakdown of the Bourlakovs’ marriage, Oleg Bourlakov and others pursued dishonest, improper or unlawful steps to reduce Mrs Bourlakova’s share of family assets. After Mr Bourlakov died in 2021, Nicholas Jacob was appointed under CPR 19.12 to represent his estate in the English proceedings.
Mr Jacob pleaded a defence and counterclaim based alternatively on a Monégasque-law nomineeship and on joint matrimonial-property rights under Ukrainian law. The Ukrainian-law case alleged that Mrs Bourlakova had disposed of matrimonial property without her husband’s consent, including transactions said to total about US$911 million. Related asset-transfer proceedings were already pending in Monaco, while Mrs Bourlakova had also commenced matrimonial-property proceedings in Latvia.
The claimants applied for a direction preventing Mr Jacob from pursuing the Ukrainian matrimonial-property issues in England. They argued that the issues should be resolved together in the foreign proceedings to avoid duplication, inconsistent judgments, recognition problems and a one-sided treatment of the matrimonial estate.
The Court’s Holding
Mr Justice Richard Smith refused the application. Although the Court accepted in principle that it may intervene where a CPR 19.12 representative fails to act in the estate’s interests, there was no basis to conclude that Mr Jacob had done so. He had acted on extensive legal advice, the pleaded defence and counterclaim were viable and within the English Court’s jurisdiction, and the course and scope of the proceedings in Monaco remained unclear.
The Court also rejected the contention that pursuing the claim in England was abusive or unfair. The Monaco proceedings had made little meaningful progress when Mr Jacob pleaded the estate’s case, and it remained uncertain what the Monégasque court would decide at its scheduled November 2026 hearing. Mr Jacob was not required to plead Mrs Bourlakova’s own matrimonial-property rights for her; she could advance any broader responsive case herself.
The Court acknowledged legitimate concerns about duplication, inconsistent outcomes and the desirability of one court applying the matrimonial-property regime to the entire estate. Those concerns were better addressed through case management, potentially including a stay, than by compelling the estate’s representative to abandon a properly brought claim. A case-management conference would be held after the November 2026 Monaco hearing, when the parties must provide concrete information about the foreign proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- A court-appointed estate representative may pursue a viable defence and counterclaim that the representative reasonably considers to serve the estate’s interests, even when related litigation is pending abroad.
- Parallel foreign proceedings do not, without more, make an English claim abusive, particularly when the foreign proceedings’ status and likely determinations remain uncertain.
- Risks of duplication, inconsistent judgments and recognition difficulties may support a later stay or other case-management order, but did not justify permanently terminating the estate’s matrimonial-property case on the evidence presented.
Why It Matters
The judgment distinguishes judicial supervision of a CPR 19.12 representative from ordinary disagreement with that representative’s litigation strategy. Intervention is possible, but the adverse party must show a proper basis for concluding that the representative is not acting in the estate’s interests or is otherwise acting improperly.
For cross-border estate and matrimonial disputes, the decision also shows that the existence of overlapping proceedings abroad may prompt careful sequencing and later reconsideration rather than immediate discontinuance. The quality and specificity of evidence about what the foreign court will actually decide can be critical.