Kazakhstan Kagazy Plc & Ors v Zhunus & Ors [2020] EWHC 698 (Comm) (25 March 2020)

Kazakhstan Kagazy Plc & Ors v Zhunus & Ors [2020] EWHC 698 (Comm) (25 March 2020)

There was no misstatement by the claimants regarding the existence or effect of the Nicosia Order; the order did not prevent former trustees from providing substantive information to the respondents. The discovery of the Nicosia Order after the January judgment was not a material change of circumstance. Disclosure of Cypriot documents was unnecessary, as the Nicosia Order was irrelevant to the respondents' pleading defaults and would not have affected the outcome of the prior applications.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 698 (Comm)
Parties
Claimants: Kazakhstan Kagazy PLC and others; Defendants: Baglan Abdullayevich Zhunus and others; Additional Party: Harbour Fund III LP; Charging Order Respondents: Cooperton Management Limited and others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application / Post Judgment Applications for Reconsideration and Specific Disclosure
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Relief From Sanctions, Reconsideration of Orders, Disclosure Applications, Norwich Pharmacal Relief, Alleged Misstatement to Court
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Relief From Sanctions Reconsideration of Orders Disclosure Applications Norwich Pharmacal Relief Alleged Misstatement to Court

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kazakhstan Kagazy PLC and others

Claimants

Baglan Abdullayevich Zhunus and others

Defendants

Harbour Fund III LP

Additional Party

Cooperton Management Limited and others

Charging Order Respondents

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application / Post Judgment Applications for Reconsideration and Specific Disclosure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a misstatement to the court regarding the existence of gagging orders
  2. 2 Whether the Nicosia Order prevented provision of information to respondents
  3. 3 Whether specific disclosure of Cypriot proceedings documents was necessary for fair determination

Ratio Decidendi

There was no misstatement by the claimants regarding the existence or effect of the Nicosia Order; the order did not prevent former trustees from providing substantive information to the respondents. The discovery of the Nicosia Order after the January judgment was not a material change of circumstance. Disclosure of Cypriot documents was unnecessary, as the Nicosia Order was irrelevant to the respondents' pleading defaults and would not have affected the outcome of the prior applications.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • Application for reconsideration under CPR 3.1(7) dismissed
  • Applications for specific disclosure dismissed