PJSC Tatneft v Gennady Bogolyubov & Ors [2018] EWHC 2499 (Comm) (26 September 2018)

PJSC Tatneft v Gennady Bogolyubov & Ors [2018] EWHC 2499 (Comm) (26 September 2018)

The proposed re-amendments would introduce a new and inconsistent claim based on different wrongful conduct and facts, namely non-payment by UTN rather than diversion of payment, which does not arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as the existing claim; therefore, permission to re-amend is refused as the new claim would be time-barred and cannot be added.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 2499 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: PJSC Tatneft; First Defendant: Gennady Bogolyubov; Second Defendant: Second Defendant; Third Defendant: Third Defendant; Fourth Defendant: Fourth Defendant
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application / Application for Permission to Re Amend Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Limitation Periods, Foreign Law (russian and Ukrainian), Assignment of Claims, Tort Liability
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Private International Law Amendment of Pleadings Limitation Periods Foreign Law (russian and Ukrainian) Assignment of Claims Tort Liability

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PJSC Tatneft

Claimant

Gennady Bogolyubov

First Defendant

Second Defendant

Second Defendant

Third Defendant

Third Defendant

Fourth Defendant

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application / Application for Permission to Re Amend Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proposed re-amendments constitute a new claim under CPR 17.4, Limitation Act 1980, and Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984
  2. 2 Whether the new claim arises out of the same or substantially the same facts as the existing claim
  3. 3 Whether permission should be granted to re-amend the particulars of claim

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed re-amendments would introduce a new and inconsistent claim based on different wrongful conduct and facts, namely non-payment by UTN rather than diversion of payment, which does not arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as the existing claim; therefore, permission to re-amend is refused as the new claim would be time-barred and cannot be added.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to re-amend particulars of claim refused