Kazakhstan Kagazy Plc & Ors v Zhunus & Ors

Kazakhstan Kagazy Plc & Ors v Zhunus & Ors

There was no misstatement to the court because the Nicosia Order did not prohibit the former trustees from providing information or documents to the respondents. The existence of the Nicosia Order was not material to the respondents’ pleading defaults or the court’s previous decision. There was no material change of circumstance or basis for reconsideration, and specific disclosure of the Cypriot documents was unnecessary.

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
All applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Relief From Sanctions, Disclosure, Misstatement to Court, Gagging Orders, Reconsideration of Orders
Civil Procedure Relief From Sanctions Disclosure Misstatement to Court Gagging Orders Reconsideration of Orders

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 documents was necessary for fair determination

Ratio Decidendi

There was no misstatement to the court because the Nicosia Order did not prohibit the former trustees from providing information or documents to the respondents. The existence of the Nicosia Order was not material to the respondents’ pleading defaults or the court’s previous decision. There was no material change of circumstance or basis for reconsideration, and specific disclosure of the Cypriot documents was unnecessary.

Court Disposition

All applications dismissed

Orders

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