Kazakhstan Kagazy Plc & Ors v Zhunus & Ors [2016] EWHC 1048 (Comm) (06 May 2016)

Kazakhstan Kagazy Plc & Ors v Zhunus & Ors [2016] EWHC 1048 (Comm) (06 May 2016)

D2 and D3 cannot serve a contribution notice against D1 unless they themselves advance allegations of fraud or wrongdoing, as the claimants are no longer pursuing claims against D1. The application for permission is refused. The court has jurisdiction in principle to grant a freezing injunction in aid of a contribution claim once proceedings are properly commenced, but since D2's contribution claim is not viable, the freezing injunction is refused.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 1048 (Comm)
Parties
Claimants: Kazakhstan Kagazy PLC (and others); First Defendant: Baglan Abdullayevich Zhunus; Second Defendant: Maksat Askaruly Arip; Third Defendant: Shynar Dikhanbayeva
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application / Interlocutory Judgment on Applications for Permission to Serve Contribution Notice and for Freezing Injunction
Outcome
Applications refused
Legal Topics
Contribution Claims, Freezing Injunctions, Fraud, Limitation, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Contribution Claims Freezing Injunctions Fraud Limitation Abuse of Process

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 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kazakhstan Kagazy PLC (and others)

Claimants

Baglan Abdullayevich Zhunus

First Defendant

Maksat Askaruly Arip

Second Defendant

Shynar Dikhanbayeva

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application / Interlocutory Judgment on Applications for Permission to Serve Contribution Notice and for Freezing Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether D2 and D3 can serve a contribution notice against D1 after settlement
  2. 2 Whether D2 can obtain a freezing injunction against D1 in aid of a contingent contribution claim

Ratio Decidendi

D2 and D3 cannot serve a contribution notice against D1 unless they themselves advance allegations of fraud or wrongdoing, as the claimants are no longer pursuing claims against D1. The application for permission is refused. The court has jurisdiction in principle to grant a freezing injunction in aid of a contribution claim once proceedings are properly commenced, but since D2's contribution claim is not viable, the freezing injunction is refused.

Court Disposition

Applications refused

Orders

  • Permission to serve contribution notice against D1 refused
  • Application for freezing injunction against D1 refused