PJSC Tatneft v Bogolyubov & Ors

PJSC Tatneft v Bogolyubov & Ors

The claim is time-barred because S-K had actual knowledge of the alleged violation of its rights and the identity of the defendants prior to the expiry of the three-year limitation period under Russian law. The limitation period began to run when S-K knew the elements of the tort, and knowledge of the identity of the defendants was not required prior to September 2013. There was no abuse of rights or public policy reason to disapply limitation. Harm under Article 1064 does not extend to claims based solely on legitimate expectation of economic benefit.

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 Full Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed as time-barred
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Foreign Law Application, Fraud, Abuse of Rights, Public Policy Exception
Private International Law Civil Procedure Tort Law Limitation of Actions Foreign Law Application Fraud Abuse of Rights Public Policy Exception

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
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 Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Tatneft's claim under Article 1064 of the Russian Civil Code is time-barred under Russian law
  2. 2 When the limitation period began to run under Russian law for the purposes of this claim
  3. 3 Whether the defendants are precluded from relying on limitation by reason of abuse of rights or public policy

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is time-barred because S-K had actual knowledge of the alleged violation of its rights and the identity of the defendants prior to the expiry of the three-year limitation period under Russian law. The limitation period began to run when S-K knew the elements of the tort, and knowledge of the identity of the defendants was not required prior to September 2013. There was no abuse of rights or public policy reason to disapply limitation. Harm under Article 1064 does not extend to claims based solely on legitimate expectation of economic benefit.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed as time-barred

Orders

  • Tatneft's claim is dismissed in its entirety as statute-barred under Russian law.
  • No abuse of rights or public policy exception applies to prevent reliance on limitation.