PJSC Commercial Bank Privatbank v Kolomoisky & Ors

PJSC Commercial Bank Privatbank v Kolomoisky & Ors

The court found that the Bank's claim against the English Defendants was brought solely to establish jurisdiction over the First and Second Defendants under Article 6.1 of the Lugano Convention, constituting an abuse of process. The Bank failed in its duty of full and frank disclosure, materially overstating the role and centrality of the English and BVI Defendants and omitting facts that would have undermined its case for jurisdiction and freezing orders. The court therefore set aside the freezing orders, struck out the claims against the First and Second Defendants for lack of jurisdiction, stayed the claims against the English Defendants under Article 34 of the Recast Regulation, and...

Parties
Claimant: PJSC 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
04 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Commercial Fraud / Ruling on Jurisdiction, Freezing Orders, and Stay Applications
Outcome
Claim against First and Second Defendants struck out for lack of jurisdiction; freezing orders set aside; claim against English Defendants stayed; service on BVI Defendants set aside for forum non conveniens.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Freezing Orders, Forum Non Conveniens, Lis Alibi Pendens, Non Disclosure, Unjust Enrichment, Tort, Fraud

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PJSC 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 Fraud / Ruling on Jurisdiction, Freezing Orders, and Stay Applications

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction over the First and Second Defendants under Article 6.1 of the Lugano Convention
  2. 2 Whether the worldwide freezing orders should be set aside for non-disclosure or misrepresentation
  3. 3 Whether the claims against the English and BVI Defendants should be stayed in favour of proceedings in Ukraine

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Bank's claim against the English Defendants was brought solely to establish jurisdiction over the First and Second Defendants under Article 6.1 of the Lugano Convention, constituting an abuse of process. The Bank failed in its duty of full and frank disclosure, materially overstating the role and centrality of the English and BVI Defendants and omitting facts that would have undermined its case for jurisdiction and freezing orders. The court therefore set aside the freezing orders, struck out the claims against the First and Second Defendants for lack of jurisdiction, stayed the claims against the English Defendants under Article 34 of the Recast Regulation, and...

Court Disposition

Claim against First and Second Defendants struck out for lack of jurisdiction; freezing orders set aside; claim against English Defendants stayed; service on BVI Defendants set aside for forum non conveniens.

Orders

  • Freezing orders made by Nugee J. and Roth J. set aside
  • Claim against English Defendants stayed under Article 34 of the Recast Regulation