Bourlakova v Bourlakov estate: High Court refuses expanded disclosure and defers partnership account to post-trial inquiry

The Chancery Division has declined to grant expanded disclosure orders sought by the seventh and eighth defendants in the long-running Bourlakov family assets dispute, holding that a full partnership account cannot sensibly be undertaken within the framework of the current proceedings leading to the October 2027 trial.

In Loudmila Bourlakova & Ors v The Estate of Oleg Bourlakov & Ors [2026] EWHC 926 (Ch), Mr Justice Richard Smith dismissed an application by Mr Nikolai Kazakov (D7) and his wife Mrs Vera Kazakova (D8) to amend the list of issues for disclosure (LOID), approve Model C disclosure requests under Issue for Disclosure [24], and compel the claimants to provide further information in response to a request for further information dated May 2025.

The underlying claims concern an alleged scheme by the late Mr Oleg Bourlakov to maximise his own share of family assets at the expense of his wife, the first claimant Mrs Loudmila Bourlakova. D7 counterclaimed on the basis of an alleged partnership under USSR or Russian law, pursuant to which he and D1 were to share equally in joint business assets. D7 further alleged that C1 had agreed to hold entrusted assets as nominee and custodian under a Safekeeping Agreement, and that following the breakdown of the Bourlakov marriage she had wrongfully refused to return his share and taken steps to misappropriate it.

The remedies sought by D7 against C1 and C4 (Veronica Bourlakova) were framed by reference to his share of the partnership assets, whether by specific performance, compensation in specie, damages, reversal of unjust enrichment, or relief under s.423 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

D7-8 sought to expand IfD [23] to encompass the underlying assets and proceeds of the Entrusted Assets, to add a new IfD [23A] addressing how those assets had been held since late 2017, and to broaden IfD [24] to cover unjust enrichment and s.423 quantum. They proposed expert-led, iterative Model C disclosure, initially suggesting 55 entities with bank and portfolio statements running from 2007.

The claimants resisted, arguing the exercise amounted to a complex tracing and accounting process incapable of completion before trial, requiring re-review of documents already examined and additional work from multiple parties including Edelweiss.

Richard Smith J found the proposed partnership account unworkable within the existing trial timetable. Even starting from 2007, following the movement of assets and funds across a large international portfolio, distinguishing between partnership assets and drawings, would be "very complex". The iterative disclosure process proposed would generate significant additional workstreams with no fixed deadline, risking the collapse of the adjusted trial timetable entirely.

Critically, the judge held that D7's remedies against C1 and C4 were "closely intertwined with, and cannot be sensibly divorced from" the required partnership account. The adjustments for partner drawings were not confined to the damages counterclaim alone, as D7-8 had argued. The proper course was to determine at trial the existence and terms of the partnership and Safekeeping Agreement, including the basis on which withdrawals were made, with remedies following in a separate post-trial accounting process.

The court was similarly unpersuaded by D7-8's fallback argument that at least the Entrusted Assets enquiry should proceed independently. Since D7's share of those assets could not be determined without the partnership account, the narrower exercise was equally premature.

All Model C requests and requests for further information directed at tracing the subsequent movement of assets were declined, with the court noting they could be revisited at the appropriate stage.

The judgement illustrates the courts' increasing willingness to sequence complex multi-party disputes — prioritising liability findings before embarking on resource-intensive accounting exercises, even where defendants characterise such sequencing as producing asymmetry between the parties.