IPJSC United Company Rusal v Whiteleave Holdings Limited & Ors

IPJSC United Company Rusal v Whiteleave Holdings Limited & Ors

The court granted alternative service on Mr Abramovich via Kobre & Kim LLP and Fordstam Limited, finding good reason due to uncertainty over effective service at the registered address and the need to ensure fair notice. The court permitted the Claimant's amendment regarding continuing overcharging by PSL, as it was consistent with existing pleadings and could be particularised further. The court refused to order a split trial, holding that it would increase costs, cause delay, complicate case management, and was not justified by any real or substantial advantage.

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
09 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Civil Action / First Case Management Conference (cmc1); Determination of Applications for Alternative Service, Amendment of Pleadings, and Trial Structure
Outcome
Applications for alternative service and amendment of pleadings granted; application for split trial refused.
Legal Topics
Alternative Service of Process, Amendment of Pleadings, Case Management, Shareholders’ Agreements, Remedies for Breach of Contract, Split Trials, Jurisdiction
Commercial Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Alternative Service of Process Amendment of Pleadings Case Management Shareholders’ Agreements Remedies for Breach of Contract +2 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 3 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
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 Civil Action / First Case Management Conference (cmc1); Determination of Applications for Alternative Service, Amendment of Pleadings, and Trial Structure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant alternative service on the Fourth Defendant under CPR r.6.27 and section 1140 of the Companies Act 2006
  2. 2 Whether to permit the Claimant to amend its pleadings to allege continuing overcharging by PSL
  3. 3 Whether to order a split trial between liability and quantum/remedy

Ratio Decidendi

The court granted alternative service on Mr Abramovich via Kobre & Kim LLP and Fordstam Limited, finding good reason due to uncertainty over effective service at the registered address and the need to ensure fair notice. The court permitted the Claimant's amendment regarding continuing overcharging by PSL, as it was consistent with existing pleadings and could be particularised further. The court refused to order a split trial, holding that it would increase costs, cause delay, complicate case management, and was not justified by any real or substantial advantage.

Court Disposition

Applications for alternative service and amendment of pleadings granted; application for split trial refused.

Orders

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