JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank & Anor v Pugachev [2014] EWHC 4336 (Ch) (19 December 2014)

JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank & Anor v Pugachev [2014] EWHC 4336 (Ch) (19 December 2014)

The court found that while there were technical failings in the claimants' evidence regarding identification of sources, these did not amount to material non-disclosure or misrepresentation sufficient to justify discharge of the freezing order. The court held that there was a good arguable case in the Russian proceedings, a sufficient risk of dissipation, and that it was just and convenient to continue the injunction. Any evidential deficiencies could be taken into account in weighing the evidence, but did not invalidate the order.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 4336 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank; Claimant/respondent: State Corporation 'Deposit Insurance Agency'; Defendant/applicant: Sergei Viktorovich Pugachev
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Application to Discharge Freezing Order / Judgment on Application to Discharge Worldwide Freezing Order
Outcome
Application to discharge freezing order refused; freezing order continued.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Without Notice Applications, Disclosure Obligations, Jurisdiction, Subsidiary Liability Under Russian Insolvency Law
Civil Procedure Insolvency Banking Law Freezing Injunctions Without Notice Applications Disclosure Obligations Jurisdiction Subsidiary Liability Under Russian Insolvency Law

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

Parties

JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank

Claimant/respondent

State Corporation 'Deposit Insurance Agency'

Claimant/respondent

Sergei Viktorovich Pugachev

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Application to Discharge Freezing Order / Judgment on Application to Discharge Worldwide Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the freezing order should be discharged for material non-disclosure or misrepresentation
  2. 2 Whether there is a good arguable case in the supported Russian proceedings
  3. 3 Whether there is a sufficient risk of dissipation to justify the freezing order

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while there were technical failings in the claimants' evidence regarding identification of sources, these did not amount to material non-disclosure or misrepresentation sufficient to justify discharge of the freezing order. The court held that there was a good arguable case in the Russian proceedings, a sufficient risk of dissipation, and that it was just and convenient to continue the injunction. Any evidential deficiencies could be taken into account in weighing the evidence, but did not invalidate the order.

Court Disposition

Application to discharge freezing order refused; freezing order continued.

Orders

  • The worldwide freezing order against Mr Pugachev remains in force.
  • No discharge of the injunction on grounds of non-disclosure or misrepresentation.