National Bank Trust v Yurov & Ors

National Bank Trust v Yurov & Ors

There were three failures of disclosure by the claimant: non-disclosure of the defendant's employment contract and its significance under Russian law, non-disclosure of a civil claim in Russian proceedings, and non-disclosure of the full Settlement Agreement with Mr Worsley. However, these failures were not deliberate or decisive, and the interests of justice require that the freezing order be continued due to the strong merits of the claimant's case and a real risk of dissipation of assets.

Parties
Claimant: National Bank Trust; First Defendant: Mr Ilya Yurov; Second Defendant: Mr Sergey Belyaev; Third Defendant: Mr Nikolay Fetisov; Fourth Defendant: Mrs Nataliya Yurova; Fifth Defendant: Mrs Irina Belyaeva; Sixth Defendant: Mrs Elena Pischulina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Commercial Freezing Order Application / Application to Set Aside Freezing Order
Outcome
Application to discharge freezing order dismissed; freezing order continued
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Full and Frank Disclosure, Risk of Dissipation, Director Duties, Russian Law, Asset Tracing
Civil Procedure Banking Law International Law Freezing Orders Full and Frank Disclosure Risk of Dissipation Director Duties Russian Law +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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

National Bank Trust

Claimant

Mr Ilya Yurov

First Defendant

Mr Sergey Belyaev

Second Defendant

Mr Nikolay Fetisov

Third Defendant

Mrs Nataliya Yurova

Fourth Defendant

Mrs Irina Belyaeva

Fifth Defendant

Mrs Elena Pischulina

Sixth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Freezing Order Application / Application to Set Aside Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the freezing order should be discharged for material non-disclosure by the claimant
  2. 2 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets justifying continuation of the freezing order

Ratio Decidendi

There were three failures of disclosure by the claimant: non-disclosure of the defendant's employment contract and its significance under Russian law, non-disclosure of a civil claim in Russian proceedings, and non-disclosure of the full Settlement Agreement with Mr Worsley. However, these failures were not deliberate or decisive, and the interests of justice require that the freezing order be continued due to the strong merits of the claimant's case and a real risk of dissipation of assets.

Court Disposition

Application to discharge freezing order dismissed; freezing order continued

Orders

  • Freezing order to remain in force
  • Submissions invited on whether and how the claimant's failures of disclosure should be marked by an order as to costs