Tajik Aluminium Plant v Ermatov & Ors

Tajik Aluminium Plant v Ermatov & Ors

Given the relative strengths of Tadaz’s claim and Ansol’s cross-claim, the role of Rusal in funding and directing Tadaz’s litigation, and the risk that disclosure would unfairly benefit Rusal, it is inappropriate to continue freezing and search and seize orders against the first to fifth defendants. The proprietary injunction may remain against Mr Ermatov, Ansol, and Mr Nazarov, but not against others.

Parties
Claimant: Tajik Aluminium Plant; 1st Defendant: Abdukadir Ganievich Ermatov; 2nd Defendant: Ansol Limited; 3rd Defendant: Avaz Saidovich Nazarov; 4th Defendant: Ashton Investments Limited; 5th Defendant: Alexander Vitalyevich Shushko; 6th Defendant: Anna Osadchaya; 7th Defendant: Cherzod Abdoukadirovich Ermatov; 8th Defendant: Ansol Resources Limited; 9th Defendant: Ansol Capital Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil / Inter Partes Hearing on Applications to Set Aside Freezing, Search and Proprietary Injunction Orders
Outcome
Freezing and search and seize orders discharged; proprietary injunction continued only against Mr Ermatov, Ansol, and Mr Nazarov; relief against other defendants discontinued.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Search and Seize Orders, Proprietary Injunctions, Fraud, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Conspiracy, Knowing Receipt, Asset Dissipation, Non Disclosure, International Commercial Disputes
Commercial Law Equity Civil Procedure Freezing Orders Search and Seize Orders Proprietary Injunctions Fraud Breach of Fiduciary Duty +5 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tajik Aluminium Plant

Claimant

Abdukadir Ganievich Ermatov

1st Defendant

Ansol Limited

2nd Defendant

Avaz Saidovich Nazarov

3rd Defendant

Ashton Investments Limited

4th Defendant

Alexander Vitalyevich Shushko

5th Defendant

Anna Osadchaya

6th Defendant

Cherzod Abdoukadirovich Ermatov

7th Defendant

Ansol Resources Limited

8th Defendant

Ansol Capital Limited

9th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Inter Partes Hearing on Applications to Set Aside Freezing, Search and Proprietary Injunction Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Tadaz demonstrates a good arguable case for relief against the defendants
  2. 2 Whether there is a real risk of asset dissipation or document suppression justifying freezing and search orders
  3. 3 Whether material misrepresentation or non-disclosure warrants setting aside the orders

Ratio Decidendi

Given the relative strengths of Tadaz’s claim and Ansol’s cross-claim, the role of Rusal in funding and directing Tadaz’s litigation, and the risk that disclosure would unfairly benefit Rusal, it is inappropriate to continue freezing and search and seize orders against the first to fifth defendants. The proprietary injunction may remain against Mr Ermatov, Ansol, and Mr Nazarov, but not against others.

Court Disposition

Freezing and search and seize orders discharged; proprietary injunction continued only against Mr Ermatov, Ansol, and Mr Nazarov; relief against other defendants discontinued.

Orders

  • Discharge of freezing and search and seize orders against first to fifth defendants
  • Continuation of proprietary injunction against Mr Ermatov, Ansol, and Mr Nazarov