Otkritie International Investment Management Ltd & Ors v Urumov & Ors

Otkritie International Investment Management Ltd & Ors v Urumov & Ors

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was entitled to refuse permission to amend the defence to plead illegality, as the proposed defence was not supported by sufficient evidence, was inconsistent with the existing defence, and would cause undue prejudice and disruption. The judge applied the correct legal principles and exercised his discretion properly. The claims were not founded on any illegal act, and the proposed illegality defence was not properly pleadable.

Parties
Claimants/respondents: Otkritie International Investment Management Limited and Others; Defendants/appellants: Georgy Urumov (a.k.a. George Urumov) and Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Interlocutory Decision Refusing Permission to Amend Defence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Illegality Defence, Amendment of Pleadings, Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio, Discretion of Trial Judge
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Illegality Defence Amendment of Pleadings Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio Discretion of Trial Judge

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Otkritie International Investment Management Limited and Others

Claimants/respondents

Georgy Urumov (a.k.a. George Urumov) and Others

Defendants/appellants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Interlocutory Decision Refusing Permission to Amend Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing permission to amend the defence to plead illegality (ex turpi causa)
  2. 2 Whether the proposed illegality defence was properly pleadable and supported by evidence
  3. 3 Whether the judge applied the correct legal principles in exercising discretion to refuse amendment

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was entitled to refuse permission to amend the defence to plead illegality, as the proposed defence was not supported by sufficient evidence, was inconsistent with the existing defence, and would cause undue prejudice and disruption. The judge applied the correct legal principles and exercised his discretion properly. The claims were not founded on any illegal act, and the proposed illegality defence was not properly pleadable.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted
  • Appeal dismissed; no permission to amend defence to plead illegality