England and Wales: High Court Permits Limited Use of Confidential Arbitration Documents in Separate Russian Proceedings

In Loudmila Bourlakova & Ors v The Estate of Oleg Bourlakov & Ors [2026] EWHC 2548 (BP), the High Court permitted the use of confidential arbitration documents to defend a separate Russian arbitration. Permission was limited to specified categories of documents and made subject to quarterly reporting.

In November 2025, the High Court ordered the disclosure of confidential arbitration documents to protect assets. The order required the twelfth defendant, Edelweiss, to provide the first and fourth claimants, the Bourlakovas, with documents from an arbitration brought by Mr Ploshchenko, subject to an undertaking restricting their use.

Mr Ploshchenko’s claim was dismissed in January 2026 and he subsequently challenged the award. Days after the dismissal, Mr Korovin, who had appeared as a witness for Mr Ploshchenko, commenced a separate arbitration against Hermitage One. The second claimant, Hermitage, sought permission to use material disclosed under the earlier order to defend the Korovin arbitration.

Permission for Collateral Use

Applying Tchenguiz v Serious Fraud Office [2014] EWCA Civ 1409, the court found cogent reasons to authorise use beyond the three documents to which Edelweiss had agreed.

The court weighed the following considerations:

Defending the claim: Hermitage had a legitimate interest in defending a substantial claim, alongside the public interest in the Korovin tribunal having access to relevant evidence.
Similarities between the arbitrations: Both claims concerned contracts for substantial sums, apparently relating to the same transaction and had been pursued before foreign tribunals long after the limitation period had expired.
Arbitral confidentiality: This carried limited weight because there was a real prospect the documents would be referred to in open court in Russia.
The confidentiality sanction: The first tribunal’s USD100,000 costs deduction against Edelweiss for breaching confidentiality did not outweigh Hermitage One’s interests.
Alleged breaches of the undertaking: Allegations that the Bourlakovas had breached their undertaking did not justify penalising Hermitage.

Scope and Conditions

The court assessed the material by reference to its relevance, rather than granting unrestricted permission. It authorised use of:

written submissions on the merits, excluding costs submissions;
documentary evidence;
witness statements and their exhibits;
the award.

Procedural orders, the costs award, legal authorities, expert evidence and the hearing recording were not necessary to establish the factual similarities between the claims and therefore fell outside the permission granted. The court rejected Edelweiss’s proposed preconditions concerning necessity and notice. However, it required quarterly updates on the Korovin arbitration.

Continuing Obligation to Produce the Hearing Recording

Separately, the court held that Edelweiss remained obliged to provide the first arbitration’s hearing recording under paragraph 7 of the disclosure order while the challenge to the award continued, despite two refusals by the tribunal.

Paragraph 7 imposed two distinct obligations: to seek the tribunal’s permission to record the hearing and to provide the recording. The latter obligation was not conditional on the tribunal’s consent.

The court nevertheless observed the order might have been framed differently had the parties addressed the issue of the tribunal’s consent to disclosure when the order was considered.

Further Orders and Practical Significance

The court adjourned applications concerning deletion of documents, deferred enforcement of the cross-undertaking, and ordered publication of the November 2025 judgment without redactions.

The decision illustrates a targeted approach to the collateral use of confidential arbitration material. Permission may be granted to use relevant documents in separate proceedings, although unnecessary material may be excluded and reporting requirements imposed. The decision also highlights the importance of distinguishing between separate obligations imposed by a disclosure order, particularly where tribunal consent is involved.