PJSC Tatneft v Bogolyubov & Ors [2020] EWHC 3250 (Comm) (13 November 2020)

PJSC Tatneft v Bogolyubov & Ors [2020] EWHC 3250 (Comm) (13 November 2020)

The application was refused because the breach was serious and significant, there was no good reason for the default, and admitting the evidence would be unfair and contrary to the interests of justice. The risk of the evidence being tailored in response to the trial, the disruption to the timetable, and the need to enforce compliance with procedural rules outweighed any prejudice to the claimant from exclusion.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 3250 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: PJSC Tatneft; First Defendant: Gennadiy Bogolyubov; Second Defendant: Igor Kolomoisky; Third Defendant: Alexander Yaroslavsky; Fourth Defendant: Pavel Ovcharenko
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application / Interlocutory Application During Trial
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Relief From Sanctions, Admission of Late Witness Evidence, CPR 3.9, CPR 32.10, Hearsay Evidence, Trial Management
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Relief From Sanctions Admission of Late Witness Evidence CPR 3.9 CPR 32.10 Hearsay Evidence Trial Management

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

PJSC Tatneft

Claimant

Gennadiy Bogolyubov

First Defendant

Igor Kolomoisky

Second Defendant

Alexander Yaroslavsky

Third Defendant

Pavel Ovcharenko

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application / Interlocutory Application During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant relief from sanctions to admit a late witness statement and oral evidence during trial
  2. 2 Whether to admit the witness statement as hearsay evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because the breach was serious and significant, there was no good reason for the default, and admitting the evidence would be unfair and contrary to the interests of justice. The risk of the evidence being tailored in response to the trial, the disruption to the timetable, and the need to enforce compliance with procedural rules outweighed any prejudice to the claimant from exclusion.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Permission to rely on Ms Savelova's witness statement and to call her to give oral evidence is refused.
  • Permission to admit Ms Savelova's witness statement as hearsay evidence is refused.