Vneshprombank LLC v Bedzhamov & Ors [2021] EWHC 1360 (Ch) (25 May 2021)

Vneshprombank LLC v Bedzhamov & Ors [2021] EWHC 1360 (Ch) (25 May 2021)

The review of the Reduced 83k Pool should not proceed; all further review or search of seized material requires a fresh application to the court, justified on normal disclosure principles and proportionality, with no presumption based on the original Search Order. The material is to be preserved under the Supervising Solicitor's custody. The exceptional circumstances, including disproportionate intrusion into third party affairs, delays and prejudice caused by VPB, and the limited value of prior searches, justify revisiting and effectively suspending the Search Order process despite prior consent orders.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 1360 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Vneshprombank LLC; First Defendant: Georgy Ivanovich Bedzhamov; Second Defendant: Unifleet Technology Limited; Third Defendant: Persons Unknown (as defined in the Claim Form); NCA Respondent: Basel Properties Limited; Third Parties: Maxim Golodnitsky and Berkley Square Investment Partners Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 May 2021
Procedural Posture
High Court Chancery Division Business List / Interlocutory Application Regarding Search Order and Document Review
Outcome
No review of the Reduced 83k Pool to proceed; seized material to be preserved to the order of the Supervising Solicitor; further review only upon fresh application; full discharge of the Search Order to be reconsidered at or following trial.
Legal Topics
Search Orders, Imaging Orders, Disclosure Principles, Proportionality, Third Party Rights, Confidentiality, Costs
Civil Procedure Injunctions Disclosure Search Orders Imaging Orders Disclosure Principles Proportionality Third Party Rights +2 more

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vneshprombank LLC

Claimant

Georgy Ivanovich Bedzhamov

First Defendant

Unifleet Technology Limited

Second Defendant

Persons Unknown (as defined in the Claim Form)

Third Defendant

Basel Properties Limited

NCA Respondent

Maxim Golodnitsky and Berkley Square Investment Partners Limited

Third Parties

Procedural Posture

High Court Chancery Division Business List / Interlocutory Application Regarding Search Order and Document Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Search Order should be discharged or the review of the Reduced 83k Pool should proceed
  2. 2 Whether any further review of seized documents is justified
  3. 3 How proportionality and third party rights affect the continuation of the Search Order

Ratio Decidendi

The review of the Reduced 83k Pool should not proceed; all further review or search of seized material requires a fresh application to the court, justified on normal disclosure principles and proportionality, with no presumption based on the original Search Order. The material is to be preserved under the Supervising Solicitor's custody. The exceptional circumstances, including disproportionate intrusion into third party affairs, delays and prejudice caused by VPB, and the limited value of prior searches, justify revisiting and effectively suspending the Search Order process despite prior consent orders.

Court Disposition

No review of the Reduced 83k Pool to proceed; seized material to be preserved to the order of the Supervising Solicitor; further review only upon fresh application; full discharge of the Search Order to be reconsidered at or following trial.

Orders

  • No review of the Reduced 83k Pool to commence.
  • Seized material to be preserved in the custody of the Supervising Solicitor to the order of the court.