Tugushev v Orlov & Ors (No. 2) [2019] EWHC 2031 (Comm) (26 July 2019)

Tugushev v Orlov & Ors (No. 2) [2019] EWHC 2031 (Comm) (26 July 2019)

The WFO was discharged due to the claimant's serious failure to make due enquiry and disclose material documents relating to his shareholding in AA in 2003, which was central to the defendant's case and the risk of dissipation assessment. The non-disclosure was reckless, not innocent, and tainted the WFO. However, the court exercised its discretion to re-grant the service out order in the interests of justice, limited to the AA conspiracy claim, and imposed a costs sanction. The court found no material non-disclosure in other alleged categories and determined that, on the evidence, the WFO should not be continued.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 2031 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Alexander Tugushev; First Defendant: Vitaly Orlov; Second Defendant: Magnus Roth; Third Defendant: Andrey Petrik
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Litigation / Interlocutory Judgment on Applications to Discharge and Continue a Worldwide Freezing Order (wfo), and Related Procedural Orders
Outcome
WFO discharged for material non-disclosure; service out order set aside as to AA conspiracy claim but re-granted in the interests of justice; costs order against claimant for application to serve out on AA conspiracy claim.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Full and Frank Disclosure, Jurisdiction, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Risk of Dissipation, Asset Freezing, Interlocutory Relief
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Freezing Injunctions Full and Frank Disclosure Jurisdiction Service Out of Jurisdiction Risk of Dissipation Asset Freezing +1 more

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 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexander Tugushev

Claimant

Vitaly Orlov

First Defendant

Magnus Roth

Second Defendant

Andrey Petrik

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Litigation / Interlocutory Judgment on Applications to Discharge and Continue a Worldwide Freezing Order (wfo), and Related Procedural Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant failed to make full and frank disclosure on the without notice application for a WFO and service out order
  2. 2 Whether the WFO should be discharged for material non-disclosure
  3. 3 Whether the WFO should be continued on an inter partes basis

Ratio Decidendi

The WFO was discharged due to the claimant's serious failure to make due enquiry and disclose material documents relating to his shareholding in AA in 2003, which was central to the defendant's case and the risk of dissipation assessment. The non-disclosure was reckless, not innocent, and tainted the WFO. However, the court exercised its discretion to re-grant the service out order in the interests of justice, limited to the AA conspiracy claim, and imposed a costs sanction. The court found no material non-disclosure in other alleged categories and determined that, on the evidence, the WFO should not be continued.

Court Disposition

WFO discharged for material non-disclosure; service out order set aside as to AA conspiracy claim but re-granted in the interests of justice; costs order against claimant for application to serve out on AA conspiracy claim.

Orders

  • WFO discharged
  • Service out order set aside as to AA conspiracy claim and re-granted