National Bank Trust v Yurov & Ors [2016] EWHC 1913 (Comm) (28 July 2016)

National Bank Trust v Yurov & Ors [2016] EWHC 1913 (Comm) (28 July 2016)

While there were failures of disclosure by the claimant, including non-disclosure of the defendant's employment contract and the Settlement Agreement with Mr Worsley, these failures were not deliberate or material enough to justify immediate discharge of the freezing order. The claimant has a good arguable case and there remains a real risk of dissipation. The interests of justice require that the freezing order continue, with the failures marked by a costs order.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 1913 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: National Bank Trust; First Defendant: Mr Ilya Yurov; Second Defendant: Mr Sergey Belyaev; Third Defendant: Mr Nikolay Fetisov; Fourth Defendant: Mrs Nataliya Yurova; Fifth Defendant: Mrs Irina Belyaeva; Sixth Defendant: Mrs Elena Pischulina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside Freezing Order / Interlocutory (application to Discharge Freezing Order)
Outcome
Application to discharge freezing order dismissed
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Full and Frank Disclosure, Director Duties, Russian Law, Asset Dissipation, Chabra Jurisdiction
Civil Procedure Banking Law Injunctions Freezing Orders Full and Frank Disclosure Director Duties Russian Law Asset Dissipation +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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

National Bank Trust

Claimant

Mr Ilya Yurov

First Defendant

Mr Sergey Belyaev

Second Defendant

Mr Nikolay Fetisov

Third Defendant

Mrs Nataliya Yurova

Fourth Defendant

Mrs Irina Belyaeva

Fifth Defendant

Mrs Elena Pischulina

Sixth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Set Aside Freezing Order / Interlocutory (application to Discharge Freezing Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant failed to provide full and frank disclosure when applying for the freezing order
  2. 2 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets by the defendants
  3. 3 Whether the freezing order should be discharged for material non-disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

While there were failures of disclosure by the claimant, including non-disclosure of the defendant's employment contract and the Settlement Agreement with Mr Worsley, these failures were not deliberate or material enough to justify immediate discharge of the freezing order. The claimant has a good arguable case and there remains a real risk of dissipation. The interests of justice require that the freezing order continue, with the failures marked by a costs order.

Court Disposition

Application to discharge freezing order dismissed

Orders

  • Freezing order to continue
  • Claimant to pay costs of the application on the standard basis