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.
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
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction over the First and Second Defendants under Article 6.1 of the Lugano Convention
- 2 Whether the worldwide freezing orders should be set aside for non-disclosure or misrepresentation
- 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
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment