IPJSC United Company Rusal v Whiteleave Holding Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 1995 (Comm) (10 July 2025)

IPJSC United Company Rusal v Whiteleave Holding Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 1995 (Comm) (10 July 2025)

Alternative service on Mr Abramovich is permitted via Fordstam Limited and Kobre & Kim LLP to ensure effective notice, given uncertainties with other addresses and the need for fair participation. The proposed amendment to pleadings is allowed as it is consistent with existing allegations and necessary for clarity, subject to further particulars being provided. A split trial is refused as it would likely increase costs, cause delay, and complicate the proceedings without clear benefit.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 1995 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: IPJSC United Company Rusal; First Defendant: Whiteleave Holdings Limited; Second Defendant: Vladimir Olegovich Potanin; Third Defendant: Crispian Investments Limited; Fourth Defendant: Roman Arkadievich Abramovich
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Litigation (breach of Shareholders' Agreement) / First Case Management Conference (cmc1); Determination of Applications for Alternative Service and Amendment of Pleadings
Outcome
Applications granted in part; alternative service and amendment allowed; split trial refused.
Legal Topics
Alternative Service of Documents, Amendment of Pleadings, Shareholders' Agreements, Case Management, Disclosure, Split Trials
Commercial Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Alternative Service of Documents Amendment of Pleadings Shareholders' Agreements Case Management Disclosure +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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

IPJSC United Company Rusal

Claimant

Whiteleave Holdings Limited

First Defendant

Vladimir Olegovich Potanin

Second Defendant

Crispian Investments Limited

Third Defendant

Roman Arkadievich Abramovich

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Litigation (breach of Shareholders' Agreement) / First Case Management Conference (cmc1); Determination of Applications for Alternative Service and Amendment of Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether alternative service on the Fourth Defendant should be permitted under CPR r.6.27
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant should be permitted to amend its pleadings to allege continuing overcharging by PSL
  3. 3 Whether there should be a split trial between liability and quantum/remedy

Ratio Decidendi

Alternative service on Mr Abramovich is permitted via Fordstam Limited and Kobre & Kim LLP to ensure effective notice, given uncertainties with other addresses and the need for fair participation. The proposed amendment to pleadings is allowed as it is consistent with existing allegations and necessary for clarity, subject to further particulars being provided. A split trial is refused as it would likely increase costs, cause delay, and complicate the proceedings without clear benefit.

Court Disposition

Applications granted in part; alternative service and amendment allowed; split trial refused.

Orders

  • Permission granted for alternative service on the Fourth Defendant via Fordstam Limited and Kobre & Kim LLP.
  • Permission granted to amend the Re-Re-Amended Particulars of Claim as proposed, with further particulars of the continuing overcharging allegation to be provided within 28 days.