UK: A Cold Wind Blowing?

Last Updated: 18 September 2018
Article by Sue Millar

The Commercial Court has been busy with a plethora of judgments involving freezing orders being handed down over the summer months.  Perhaps the most significant of these is Mr Justice Popplewell’s decision in Fundo Soberano de Angola v Jose Filomeno Dos Santos and others which serves as a salutary reminder of the importance of the full and frank disclosure obligation.

The claimants were the sovereign wealth fund of the Republic of Angola (“FSDEA”) and 7 of its subsidiaries which applied for, and obtained, a worldwide freezing order. The freezing order was obtained in support of several claims arising out of an alleged dishonest conspiracy between the 1st defendant, Mr dos Santos, former chairman of FSDEA, and his friend and business partner, the 2nd defendant, Mr Bastos, who was the 95% beneficial owner of the Quantum group of companies (the "Quantum group") (the 3rd to 20th defendants).  The 21st defendant was the bank in the UK where certain investment funds were held within the jurisdiction.

The claimants argued that, as part of the conspiracy, Mr dos Santos placed some $5 billion at the disposal of the Quantum group to manage and invest on FSDEA’s behalf when the Quantum group lacked the appropriate qualifications or experience for such a mandate.  It was alleged that most of the monies had not been invested at all but had been used by the Quantum group to extract excessive fees amounting to over US$ 406 million.  Where investments had been made, it was alleged that they were in projects related to Mr Bastos and were not in the interests of FSDEA at all.  The claimants also alleged that Mr dos Santos had committed FSDEA to pay around US$152 million in fees to the Quantum group and other companies related to Mr Bastos under contracts which were manifestly uncommercial and which were intended to divert money from FSDEA into Mr Bastos’ pocket.

The defendants denied any wrongdoing, claiming that they were the victims of political change in Angola following the decision of Mr dos Santos’s father to step down as president of Angola and the election of his replacement, President Lourenco, in August 2017.  They sought to discharge the freezing order on a number of grounds, including that the English Court had no jurisdiction to hear the underlying claims and that the claimants had breached their obligation to give full and frank disclosure when first applying for the freezing order.

The defendants were successful in knocking out all but a handful of the claims on jurisdictional grounds; it was not at all obvious that there was any real connection with the jurisdiction of England and Wales in any real sense.  But the judge reserved his most severe criticism for what he saw as the claimants’ unfair presentation of their case before Mr Justice Phillips, who granted the initial freezing order application, caused by a number of material breaches of their obligation to give full and frank disclosure.  The judge held that if the claimants had presented their case fairly, then they would have failed to satisfy Mr Justice Phillips that there was any real risk of dissipation so as to justify the grant of the freezing order in the first place.

The principles applying to full and frank disclosure are well known:

  1. The applicant is under a duty to make a full and fair disclosure of all material facts;
  2. The material facts are those which it is material for the judge to know in dealing with the application before the Court;
  3. The applicant must make proper enquiries before making the application.  The duty of disclosure applies not only to material facts known to the applicant but also to any additional fact which they would have known if they had made such enquiries;
  4. The extent of the inquiries to be made will depend on all the circumstances of the case including (a) the nature of the applicant’s case; (b) the order which is being sought and the probable effect of the order on the defendant; and (c) the degree of urgency and the time available for making inquiries;
  5. If material non-disclosure is established, the Court will be astute to ensure that the defaulting applicant is deprived of any advantage derived from that breach of duty;
  6. Whether the fact not disclosed is of sufficient materiality to justify immediate discharge of the freezing order will depend on the importance of that fact to the issues which were to be decided by the judge on the application; and
  7. The Court has a discretion, notwithstanding proof of material non-disclosure which justifies the immediate discharge of the freezing order, to continue the order (or to discharge but immediately make a new order) when the whole of the facts, including that of the original non-disclosure was “innocent” (in the sense that the relevant fact was not known or its relevance was not perceived) and if an injunction could properly have been granted even had the facts been appropriately presented.

The judge emphasised three points:

  1. The Court must be able to rely on the party appearing on a without notice application to present the evidence and argument in a way which is not merely designed to promote its own interests, but in a fair and even-handed manner, drawing attention to matters which it can reasonably anticipate the absent party would wish to make.  It is a duty owed to the Court which exists to ensure the integrity of the process;
  2. The ultimate touchstone is whether the presentation of the application is fair in all material respects. In a complex case with a large volume of documents, it is not sufficient if disclosure is made in some part of the material, even if amongst that which the judge is expressly invited to read, if that aspect of the evidence and its significance is obscured by an unfair summary or presentation of the case.  It is essential to the efficient administration of justice that the judge can rely on having been given a full and fair summary of the available evidence and competing considerations which are relevant to the decision; and
  3. The duty is not confined to the applicant’s legal advisers but is a duty which rests on the applicant itself.  It is the duty of the legal team to ensure that the lay client is aware of the duty and what it means in practice.  The responsibility of the applicant’s lawyers in this respect is a heavy one but it is important that the lay client should understand and discharge the duty of full and frank disclosure because often it will be only the client who is aware of everything which is material.

Against that background, the judge concluded that the claimants had breached their duties of full and frank disclosure and fair presentation in eight material respects:

  • They had allowed a misleading impression of how the Quantum group had been appointed to be presented to Mr Justice Phillips.  The Claimants’ evidence suggested that the Quantum group had been appointed because of Mr dos Santos’ influence when the group had in fact been selected by the previous chairman of  FSDEA and following the submission of detailed proposals and at least three presentations by experienced investment professionals;
  • The claimants had presented the Quantum group as “an unknown and untested entity” when reasonable enquiries would have established that the group had managed assets for the Banco Nacional de Angola, the Angolan state bank, of US$2.3 billion in liquid assets and a further US$1 billion in private equity investments;
  • The claimants did not disclose or draw to the attention of the judge considering the application for the freezing order that the appointment of Quantum and its activities in relation to investment management were transparent and reported on to an audience within FSDEA beyond Mr dos Santos;
  • There was an unfair presentation of the use of the limited partnership model as evidence of impropriety;
  • The claimants had made a number of allegations of non-disclosure of conflicts of interest on the Quantum group’s part without drawing to the judge’s attention that Quantum had in fact disclosed a number of potential conflicts or that FSDEA had granted a waiver in relation to them;
  • There was non-disclosure and an unfair presentation in respect of the fees charged which were described as “breathtaking”, “extraordinary” and “eye watering” when it was subsequently accepted that it was common to charge fees on the amount of the committed capital rather than the amount drawn down and that the level of fees were in accordance with the traditional PE model;
  • There was a failure to present the stance of the 21st defendant fully or fairly. It had made clear to FSDEA that it would not take any action to allow movement of funds from the accounts without joint and express written instructions from both FSDEA and the Quantum group and that it would give prior notification if it intended to change that position.  Had the claimants correctly summarised the 21st defendants’ correspondence, Mr Justice Phillips would likely have concluded that there was no risk of dissipation in respect of the monies held by the 21st defendant;
  • Counsel’s skeleton argument stated incorrectly that the claimants were not seeking proprietary injunctions against Mr dos Santos and Mr Bastos.

Taking all of these factors into account, Mr Justice Popplewell held that the claimants’ breaches of duty were sufficiently serious and culpable to warrant discharging the freezing order and this was not a case in which it would be appropriate to grant a new freezing order on revised terms.

Practical implications

A without notice freezing order is often met with a discharge application, which invariably includes allegations of breaches of the duties of full and frank disclosure.  Nothing in Mr Justice Popplewell's decision is new law; this is an area where individual decisions turn very much on the Court's view of the facts.  However, Mr Justice Popplewell’s decision in this case may be indicative of a more restrictive approach to the grant of freezing orders generally.  It is certainly indicative of the Court looking more carefully at applicants' compliance with the duty to give full and frank disclosure.  Indeed, Mr Justice Popplewell’s approach has already been followed by Mr Justice Males in  his  decision in Galagaev & Others v Ananyev & Others handed down on 24 August 2018.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions