JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank & Anor v Pugachev

JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank & Anor v Pugachev

The freezing order should not be discharged. While there were technical and some material non-disclosures by the claimants (notably failure to disclose certain valuations and aspects of the Russian sale process), these were not deliberate, did not fundamentally mislead the court, and would not have affected the grant of the injunction. The claimants have a good arguable case in the Russian proceedings, there is a sufficient risk of dissipation, and it remains just and convenient to continue the injunction. The disciplinary function of the disclosure rule does not require discharge in these circumstances.

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
Interlocutory Application in Civil Proceedings / Application to Discharge a Worldwide Freezing Order
Outcome
Application to discharge the freezing order refused; freezing order continued.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Without Notice Applications, Disclosure Obligations, Subsidiary Liability Under Russian Law, Risk of Dissipation, Clean Hands Doctrine
Civil Procedure Insolvency Banking Law Freezing Injunctions Without Notice Applications Disclosure Obligations Subsidiary Liability Under Russian Law Risk of 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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
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

Interlocutory Application in Civil Proceedings / Application to Discharge a Worldwide Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the worldwide freezing order should be discharged for material non-disclosure and/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 freezing order should not be discharged. While there were technical and some material non-disclosures by the claimants (notably failure to disclose certain valuations and aspects of the Russian sale process), these were not deliberate, did not fundamentally mislead the court, and would not have affected the grant of the injunction. The claimants have a good arguable case in the Russian proceedings, there is a sufficient risk of dissipation, and it remains just and convenient to continue the injunction. The disciplinary function of the disclosure rule does not require discharge in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Application to discharge the freezing order refused; freezing order continued.

Orders

  • The worldwide freezing order remains in force.
  • The parties are to be heard on the parallel application to strike out the claim, if necessary.