JSC VTB Bank v Skurikhin & Anor [2012] EWHC 3116 (Comm) (08 November 2012)

JSC VTB Bank v Skurikhin & Anor [2012] EWHC 3116 (Comm) (08 November 2012)

The court has discretion to order further disclosure against Mr. Skurikhin regarding his interests in the Foundation and Settlement, and in Pikeville, because the freezing injunction expressly restrains dealings with his interests in English LLPs, and there is a real nexus between the jurisdiction and the subject matter. The disclosure is necessary to identify and preserve relevant rights and interests, and to monitor compliance, but should not extend to all details sought by VTB, only to those proportionate and necessary for the current stage.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 3116 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: JSC VTB Bank; First Defendant: Pavel Valerjevich Skurikhin; Second Defendant: Pikeville Investments LLP; Third Defendant: Perchwell Holdings LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Asset Freezing Injunction and Disclosure Applications / Interlocutory Application Prior to Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Application for further disclosure granted in part
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Disclosure Orders, Jurisdiction, Interim Relief Under Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, Beneficial Ownership, Trust and Foundation Structures, Equitable Execution
Civil Procedure International Civil Litigation Asset Freezing Trusts and Equity Freezing Injunctions Disclosure Orders Jurisdiction Interim Relief Under Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 +3 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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JSC VTB Bank

Claimant

Pavel Valerjevich Skurikhin

First Defendant

Pikeville Investments LLP

Second Defendant

Perchwell Holdings LLP

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Asset Freezing Injunction and Disclosure Applications / Interlocutory Application Prior to Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether further disclosure orders should be made against Mr. Skurikhin regarding his interests in trusts and foundations controlling English LLPs
  2. 2 Whether the scope of disclosure should exceed the ambit of the freezing injunction
  3. 3 Whether there is a real connecting link between the subject matter and the territorial jurisdiction of the English court

Ratio Decidendi

The court has discretion to order further disclosure against Mr. Skurikhin regarding his interests in the Foundation and Settlement, and in Pikeville, because the freezing injunction expressly restrains dealings with his interests in English LLPs, and there is a real nexus between the jurisdiction and the subject matter. The disclosure is necessary to identify and preserve relevant rights and interests, and to monitor compliance, but should not extend to all details sought by VTB, only to those proportionate and necessary for the current stage.

Court Disposition

Application for further disclosure granted in part

Orders

  • Mr. Skurikhin to provide further disclosure regarding the Foundation and Settlement, including registration/incorporation details, contact details, constitutional documents, identity of discretionary beneficiaries, settlor and protector, and limited information regarding previous ownership of interests in Pikeville...
  • Precise form of the order to be determined after further argument; extensive evidence regarding previous transfers not required at this stage.