OJSC Oil Company Yugraneft v Abramovich & Ors (Rev 1) [2008] EWHC 2613 (Comm) (29 October 2008)

OJSC Oil Company Yugraneft v Abramovich & Ors (Rev 1) [2008] EWHC 2613 (Comm) (29 October 2008)

The court found that the applications raised substantial disputes of fact and law, including the proper law of the claims, the effect of prior Russian and BVI proceedings, and the factual circumstances of the alleged dilution and fraud. The evidence did not permit summary dismissal or a finding that the English...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 2613 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: OJSC Oil Company Yugraneft (in liquidation); First Defendant: Roman Arkadievich Abramovich; Second Defendant: Millhouse Capital UK Limited; Third Defendant: Boris Berezovsky
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application (with Related Companies Court Application) / Interlocutory Applications on Jurisdiction, Summary Dismissal, and Insolvency Jurisdiction
Outcome
Applications for summary dismissal and to set aside jurisdiction refused at this stage; no summary determination of insolvency jurisdiction; matters to proceed to trial or further hearing.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Summary Judgment, Fraud, Unjust Enrichment, Corporate Governance, Cross Border Insolvency
Commercial Law Company Law Insolvency Law Private International Law Jurisdiction Summary Judgment Fraud Unjust Enrichment +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

OJSC Oil Company Yugraneft (in liquidation)

Claimant

Roman Arkadievich Abramovich

First Defendant

Millhouse Capital UK Limited

Second Defendant

Boris Berezovsky

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application (with Related Companies Court Application) / Interlocutory Applications on Jurisdiction, Summary Dismissal, and Insolvency Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction over Mr Abramovich and Millhouse Capital UK Limited
  2. 2 Whether the claims against the defendants have a realistic prospect of success (summary dismissal)
  3. 3 Whether the appointment of an English provisional liquidator should be set aside and the court should decline insolvency jurisdiction over Yugraneft

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applications raised substantial disputes of fact and law, including the proper law of the claims, the effect of prior Russian and BVI proceedings, and the factual circumstances of the alleged dilution and fraud. The evidence did not permit summary dismissal or a finding that the English court lacked jurisdiction at this stage. The appointment of the English provisional liquidator and the court's insolvency jurisdiction required further consideration and could not be set aside summarily.

Court Disposition

Applications for summary dismissal and to set aside jurisdiction refused at this stage; no summary determination of insolvency jurisdiction; matters to proceed to trial or further hearing.

Orders

  • Applications to dismiss the claims against Mr Abramovich and Millhouse refused.
  • Application to set aside service on Mr Abramovich refused.