Otkritie International Investment Management Ltd & Ors v Urumov & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 1196 (08 October 2013)

Otkritie International Investment Management Ltd & Ors v Urumov & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 1196 (08 October 2013)

The proposed illegality defence was not properly pleadable, lacked evidential support, and was inconsistent with existing defence. The claim was not founded on an illegal act, and the judge's refusal to allow amendment was correct both on legal and discretionary grounds.

Citation
[2013] EWCA Civ 1196
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
Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal Against Refusal to Amend Defence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Illegality Defence, Amendment of Pleadings, Ex Turpi Causa, Fraud, Restitution
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Illegality Defence Amendment of Pleadings Ex Turpi Causa Fraud Restitution

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

Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal Against Refusal to Amend Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission should be granted to amend the defence to plead illegality (ex turpi causa)
  2. 2 Whether the claimants' claims are barred by their own alleged illegality
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing permission to amend

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed illegality defence was not properly pleadable, lacked evidential support, and was inconsistent with existing defence. The claim was not founded on an illegal act, and the judge's refusal to allow amendment was correct both on legal and discretionary grounds.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted
  • Appeal dismissed