Karpov v Browder & Ors

Karpov v Browder & Ors

The claim was struck out as an abuse of process and/or under the inherent jurisdiction because the claimant had no real and substantial reputation or connection with the jurisdiction, any vindication would be minimal and disproportionate to the cost and court resources required, Russia was the natural forum, and the particulars of justification for the most serious allegations were inadequate.

Parties
Claimant: Pavel Karpov; First Defendant: William Felix Browder; Second Defendant: Hermitage Capital Management Limited; Third Defendant: Hermitage Capital Management (UK) Limited; Fourth Defendant: Jamison Reed Firestone
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Strike Out Application and Preliminary Issues
Outcome
Claim struck out as abuse of process and/or under the inherent jurisdiction
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Jurisdiction, Limitation of Actions, Justification Defence, Reputation, Injunctions
Defamation Private International Law Civil Procedure Abuse of Process Jurisdiction Limitation of Actions Justification Defence Reputation +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pavel Karpov

Claimant

William Felix Browder

First Defendant

Hermitage Capital Management Limited

Second Defendant

Hermitage Capital Management (UK) Limited

Third Defendant

Jamison Reed Firestone

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Strike Out Application and Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim should be struck out as an abuse of process due to lack of real and substantial tort within the jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether the claimant had a reputation to protect in England and Wales
  3. 3 Whether the proceedings would achieve worthwhile vindication for the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was struck out as an abuse of process and/or under the inherent jurisdiction because the claimant had no real and substantial reputation or connection with the jurisdiction, any vindication would be minimal and disproportionate to the cost and court resources required, Russia was the natural forum, and the particulars of justification for the most serious allegations were inadequate.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out as abuse of process and/or under the inherent jurisdiction