Navigator Equities Limited & Anor v Oleg Vladimirovich Deripaska

Navigator Equities Limited & Anor v Oleg Vladimirovich Deripaska

The claimants failed to prove, to the criminal standard, that the shares were cancelled as alleged in their application notice. The application notice and supporting evidence were premised on the shares being automatically cancelled and replaced by new shares in a new company, but no expert evidence of Jersey or Russian law was adduced to support this. The claimants are bound by the case pleaded in their application notice and cannot advance a materially different case on appeal. The committal appeal must therefore be dismissed. The costs order for indemnity assessment was wrong in principle as it was punitive, not compensatory, and disproportionate; it is set aside.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Navigator Equities Limited; Appellant/claimant: Vladimir Anatolevich Chernukhin; Respondent/defendant: Oleg Vladimirovich Deripaska
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (contempt of Court, Costs) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Committal appeal dismissed; costs appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Committal for Contempt, Interpretation of Undertakings, Foreign Company Law, Costs Assessment
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Arbitration Enforcement Committal for Contempt Interpretation of Undertakings Foreign Company Law Costs Assessment

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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Navigator Equities Limited

Appellant/claimant

Vladimir Anatolevich Chernukhin

Appellant/claimant

Oleg Vladimirovich Deripaska

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (contempt of Court, Costs) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Deripaska breached court undertakings by procuring or permitting B-Finance to vote for EN+’s redomiciliation, amounting to contempt of court
  2. 2 Whether the claimants proved to the criminal standard that the shares were cancelled as alleged
  3. 3 Whether the claimants’ application notice properly pleaded the case advanced

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to prove, to the criminal standard, that the shares were cancelled as alleged in their application notice. The application notice and supporting evidence were premised on the shares being automatically cancelled and replaced by new shares in a new company, but no expert evidence of Jersey or Russian law was adduced to support this. The claimants are bound by the case pleaded in their application notice and cannot advance a materially different case on appeal. The committal appeal must therefore be dismissed. The costs order for indemnity assessment was wrong in principle as it was punitive, not compensatory, and disproportionate; it is set aside.

Court Disposition

Committal appeal dismissed; costs appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Committal appeal dismissed
  • Order for indemnity assessment of costs set aside; costs to be assessed on the standard basis