Tugushev v Orlov & Ors (No. 2)

Tugushev v Orlov & Ors (No. 2)

Mr Tugushev failed to make due enquiry and disclose material documents and facts relating to his shareholding in AA at the time of his appointment to public office in 2003, despite Mr Orlov's express contentions. This was a serious breach of the duty of full and frank disclosure, justifying discharge of the WFO. There was no real risk of dissipation of Mr Orlov's assets to justify re-granting the WFO. The service out order in relation to the AA conspiracy claim was also set aside for non-disclosure but re-granted in the interests of justice, subject to costs.

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 / Judgment on Applications to Discharge/continue Worldwide Freezing Order (wfo) and Service Out Order
Outcome
WFO set aside and discharged; service out order (AA conspiracy claim) set aside but re-granted on terms as to costs; all other applications dismissed.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Full and Frank Disclosure, Jurisdiction, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Risk of Dissipation
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Freezing Injunctions Full and Frank Disclosure Jurisdiction Service Out of Jurisdiction Risk of Dissipation

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 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
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 / Judgment on Applications to Discharge/continue Worldwide Freezing Order (wfo) and Service Out Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was material non-disclosure by the claimant justifying discharge of the WFO
  2. 2 Whether the WFO should be continued or re-granted
  3. 3 Whether the service out order should be set aside for non-disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Tugushev failed to make due enquiry and disclose material documents and facts relating to his shareholding in AA at the time of his appointment to public office in 2003, despite Mr Orlov's express contentions. This was a serious breach of the duty of full and frank disclosure, justifying discharge of the WFO. There was no real risk of dissipation of Mr Orlov's assets to justify re-granting the WFO. The service out order in relation to the AA conspiracy claim was also set aside for non-disclosure but re-granted in the interests of justice, subject to costs.

Court Disposition

WFO set aside and discharged; service out order (AA conspiracy claim) set aside but re-granted on terms as to costs; all other applications dismissed.

Orders

  • WFO discharged
  • Service out order (AA conspiracy claim) set aside but re-granted on terms as to costs