Public Joint Stock Company Vseukrainskyi Aktsionernyi Bank v Maksimov & Ors (Rev 1) [2014] EWHC 3771 (Comm) (17 November 2014)

Public Joint Stock Company Vseukrainskyi Aktsionernyi Bank v Maksimov & Ors (Rev 1) [2014] EWHC 3771 (Comm) (17 November 2014)

Mr Maksimov was in contempt of court for failing to provide asset disclosure as required by the Cooke Order, as he knew of his obligations and did not take steps to vary or set aside the order or comply until threatened with committal. His reasons for non-compliance, while understandable as a matter of fact, did not excuse him as a matter of English law. The evidence did not establish to the criminal standard that Mr Maksimov caused or procured the transfer of Bauman shares or knowingly assisted in breaches by companies, as the Bank's case relied on circumstantial evidence and there were plausible alternative explanations. The court was not satisfied to the criminal standard that Mr...

Citation
[2014] EWHC 3771 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Public Joint Stock Company Vseukrainskyi Aktsionernyi Bank; First Defendant: Sergey Maksimov
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Committal Application for Contempt of Court / Judgment After Expedited Hearing
Outcome
Mr Maksimov found in contempt of court for failure to provide asset disclosure as required by the Cooke Order; other grounds of contempt not established to the criminal standard except for failure to disclose Cascade shareholding.
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Freezing Orders, Asset Disclosure, Arbitration Support, Chabra Jurisdiction
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Contempt of Court Freezing Orders Asset Disclosure Arbitration Support Chabra Jurisdiction

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

Parties

Public Joint Stock Company Vseukrainskyi Aktsionernyi Bank

Claimant

Sergey Maksimov

First Defendant

Procedural Posture

Committal Application for Contempt of Court / Judgment After Expedited Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Maksimov was in contempt of court for failing to comply with asset disclosure obligations under freezing orders
  2. 2 Whether Mr Maksimov caused or procured breaches of freezing orders by associated companies
  3. 3 Whether Mr Maksimov knowingly assisted or permitted breaches of the Field Order by companies he controlled

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Maksimov was in contempt of court for failing to provide asset disclosure as required by the Cooke Order, as he knew of his obligations and did not take steps to vary or set aside the order or comply until threatened with committal. His reasons for non-compliance, while understandable as a matter of fact, did not excuse him as a matter of English law. The evidence did not establish to the criminal standard that Mr Maksimov caused or procured the transfer of Bauman shares or knowingly assisted in breaches by companies, as the Bank's case relied on circumstantial evidence and there were plausible alternative explanations. The court was not satisfied to the criminal standard that Mr...

Court Disposition

Mr Maksimov found in contempt of court for failure to provide asset disclosure as required by the Cooke Order; other grounds of contempt not established to the criminal standard except for failure to disclose Cascade shareholding.

Orders

  • Declaration of contempt for failure to provide disclosure under Cooke Order
  • Further consideration of sentence and whether contempt is continuing or purged