Gaydamak v Leviev [2014] EWHC 1167 (Ch) (15 April 2014)

Gaydamak v Leviev [2014] EWHC 1167 (Ch) (15 April 2014)

The claimant's new trust-based attack on the 2011 settlement agreement falls within Lord Sumption's second category of cause of action estoppel. The point could and should have been raised in the first proceedings, and there are no special circumstances justifying its litigation now. The conspiracy claim is barred by issue estoppel and is inadequately pleaded. Maintaining the present proceedings would be an abuse of process.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 1167 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant and Respondent: Arkady Gaydamak; Defendant and Applicant: Lev Leviev
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Application to Strike Out Claim / High Court, Chancery Division, Post Trial Application
Outcome
Application granted; claim struck out as barred by cause of action estoppel and abuse of process.
Legal Topics
Cause of Action Estoppel, Abuse of Process, Trustee Duties, Conspiracy, Fraudulent Misrepresentation
Civil Procedure Trusts Law Equity Cause of Action Estoppel Abuse of Process Trustee Duties Conspiracy Fraudulent Misrepresentation

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arkady Gaydamak

Claimant and Respondent

Lev Leviev

Defendant and Applicant

Procedural Posture

Application to Strike Out Claim / High Court, Chancery Division, Post Trial Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's new trust-based attack on the 2011 settlement agreement is barred by cause of action estoppel or abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether the conspiracy claim is improperly pleaded and barred by issue estoppel

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's new trust-based attack on the 2011 settlement agreement falls within Lord Sumption's second category of cause of action estoppel. The point could and should have been raised in the first proceedings, and there are no special circumstances justifying its litigation now. The conspiracy claim is barred by issue estoppel and is inadequately pleaded. Maintaining the present proceedings would be an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Application granted; claim struck out as barred by cause of action estoppel and abuse of process.

Orders

  • Claim against Leviev struck out
  • Conspiracy claim struck out