JSC Commercial Bank Privatbank v Kolomoisky & Ors

JSC Commercial Bank Privatbank v Kolomoisky & Ors

There were some deficiencies in Mr Kolomoisky’s original asset disclosure, but they were not significant or serious enough to justify the exceptional relief of cross-examination. The Bank had alternative means to seek clarification and had not exhausted them. The purpose of the freezing order was met by the information now provided, and cross-examination would be disproportionate and not just or convenient at this stage.

Parties
Claimant: JSC Commercial Bank Privatbank; First Defendant: Igor Valeryevich Kolomoisky; Second Defendant: Gennadiy Borisovich Bogolyubov; Third Defendant: Teamtrend Limited; Fourth Defendant: Trade Point Agro Limited; Fifth Defendant: Collyer Limited; Sixth Defendant: Rossyn Investing Corp; Seventh Defendant: Milbert Ventures Inc; Eighth Defendant: ZAO Ukrtransitservice Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial/chancery) / Interlocutory Application for Cross Examination in Aid of Freezing Order
Outcome
Application for cross-examination refused
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Asset Disclosure, Cross Examination, Oral Evidence, Enforcement of Judgments
Civil Procedure Banking Law Fraud Freezing Orders Asset Disclosure Cross Examination Oral Evidence Enforcement of Judgments

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JSC Commercial Bank Privatbank

Claimant

Igor Valeryevich Kolomoisky

First Defendant

Gennadiy Borisovich Bogolyubov

Second Defendant

Teamtrend Limited

Third Defendant

Trade Point Agro Limited

Fourth Defendant

Collyer Limited

Fifth Defendant

Rossyn Investing Corp

Sixth Defendant

Milbert Ventures Inc

Seventh Defendant

ZAO Ukrtransitservice Ltd

Eighth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial/chancery) / Interlocutory Application for Cross Examination in Aid of Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there are significant or serious deficiencies in Mr Kolomoisky’s asset disclosure justifying an order for cross-examination
  2. 2 Whether cross-examination is proportionate, just, and necessary to police the freezing order
  3. 3 Whether the Bank has alternative means to obtain the information required

Ratio Decidendi

There were some deficiencies in Mr Kolomoisky’s original asset disclosure, but they were not significant or serious enough to justify the exceptional relief of cross-examination. The Bank had alternative means to seek clarification and had not exhausted them. The purpose of the freezing order was met by the information now provided, and cross-examination would be disproportionate and not just or convenient at this stage.

Court Disposition

Application for cross-examination refused

Orders

  • The relief sought by the Bank is refused.