Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation & 75 Ors v Yuri Privalov & 28 Ors [2011] EWHC 715 (Comm) (24 March 2011)
The claimants failed to establish dishonesty on the part of Mr. Skarga or Mr. Nikitin in relation to the alleged bribes (holidays and credit card), as the benefits were not provided or received with knowledge or recklessness as to their corrupting effect, nor were they secret or of significant value. The judge found that the claimants' case at trial was limited to dishonesty in relation to transactions, not in the giving or receiving of bribes per se. The applicable law for bribery claims was Russian law, as the most significant elements occurred in Russia. No grounds for permission to appeal were made out, as the proposed appeals had no real prospect of success and challenged findings of...
- Citation
- [2011] EWHC 715 (Comm)
- Parties
- Claimants: Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation and 75 ors.; Defendants: Yuri Privalov and 28 ors.; Part 20 Claimants: Yuri Nikitin and anr.; Part 20 Defendants: H. Clarkson & Company Ltd.; Claimants: Intrigue Shipping Inc. and 50 ors.; Defendants: H. Clarkson & Company Ltd. and 8 ors.; Claimants: Fiona Trust & Holding Corp. and 9 ors.; Defendants: Dmitri Skarga and 3 ors.; Claimants: Southbank Navigation Ltd. and 6 ors.; Defendants: H. Clarkson and Company Ltd.
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 24 March 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Commercial Court Proceedings (multiple Consolidated Claims and Part 20 Claims) / Post Trial Judgment on Permission to Appeal and Supplemental Findings
- Outcome
- Permission to appeal refused for all applicants; supplemental findings made on dishonesty and applicable law.
- Legal Topics
- Bribery, Dishonest Assistance, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Applicable Law, Permission to Appeal, Commission Arrangements, Fraud
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation and 75 ors.
Claimants
Yuri Privalov and 28 ors.
Defendants
Yuri Nikitin and anr.
Part 20 Claimants
H. Clarkson & Company Ltd.
Part 20 Defendants
Intrigue Shipping Inc. and 50 ors.
Claimants
H. Clarkson & Company Ltd. and 8 ors.
Defendants
Fiona Trust & Holding Corp. and 9 ors.
Claimants
Dmitri Skarga and 3 ors.
Defendants
Southbank Navigation Ltd. and 6 ors.
Claimants
H. Clarkson and Company Ltd.
Defendants
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Proceedings (multiple Consolidated Claims and Part 20 Claims) / Post Trial Judgment on Permission to Appeal and Supplemental Findings
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Mr. Skarga and Mr. Nikitin acted dishonestly in relation to alleged bribes
- 2 Whether claimants are entitled to relief for transactions tainted by bribery
- 3 Whether English or Russian law applies to bribery claims
Ratio Decidendi
The claimants failed to establish dishonesty on the part of Mr. Skarga or Mr. Nikitin in relation to the alleged bribes (holidays and credit card), as the benefits were not provided or received with knowledge or recklessness as to their corrupting effect, nor were they secret or of significant value. The judge found that the claimants' case at trial was limited to dishonesty in relation to transactions, not in the giving or receiving of bribes per se. The applicable law for bribery claims was Russian law, as the most significant elements occurred in Russia. No grounds for permission to appeal were made out, as the proposed appeals had no real prospect of success and challenged findings of...
Court Disposition
Permission to appeal refused for all applicants; supplemental findings made on dishonesty and applicable law.
Orders
- Refusal of claimants' application for permission to appeal.
- Refusal of defendants' applications for permission to appeal in all actions.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment