PJSC Tatneft v Bogolyubov & Ors [2021] EWHC 411 (Comm) (24 February 2021)

PJSC Tatneft v Bogolyubov & Ors [2021] EWHC 411 (Comm) (24 February 2021)

The claim is time-barred under Russian law because, on the balance of probabilities, S-K had actual or constructive knowledge of the violation of its rights (harm, wrongful act, and causation) more than three years before the claim was issued. Under Russian law prior to 1 September 2013, knowledge of the identity of the defendant was not required for time to run in tort claims. The limitation period therefore expired before the claim was brought, and the claim must be dismissed.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 411 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: PJSC Tatneft; First Defendant: Gennady Bogolyubov; Second Defendant: Igor Kolomoisky; Third Defendant: Alexander Yaroslavsky; Fourth Defendant: Pavel Ovcharenko
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed as time-barred
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Foreign Law Application, Fraud, Assignment of Claims, Tort (russian Civil Code Article 1064)
Private International Law Commercial Law Civil Procedure Limitation of Actions Foreign Law Application Fraud Assignment of Claims Tort (russian Civil Code Article 1064)

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PJSC Tatneft

Claimant

Gennady Bogolyubov

First Defendant

Igor Kolomoisky

Second Defendant

Alexander Yaroslavsky

Third Defendant

Pavel Ovcharenko

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Tatneft's claim under Article 1064 of the Russian Civil Code is time-barred under Russian law limitation rules
  2. 2 What constitutes 'knowledge' for the purposes of limitation under Russian law
  3. 3 Whether knowledge of the identity of the defendant was required pre-September 2013 for time to run

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is time-barred under Russian law because, on the balance of probabilities, S-K had actual or constructive knowledge of the violation of its rights (harm, wrongful act, and causation) more than three years before the claim was issued. Under Russian law prior to 1 September 2013, knowledge of the identity of the defendant was not required for time to run in tort claims. The limitation period therefore expired before the claim was brought, and the claim must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed as time-barred

Orders

  • Claim dismissed
  • No order for damages against the defendants