PJSC Tatneft v Bogolyubov & Ors [2019] EWHC 1400 (Comm) (05 June 2019)

PJSC Tatneft v Bogolyubov & Ors [2019] EWHC 1400 (Comm) (05 June 2019)

There is a real risk of substantial obstacles to enforcement of a costs order against Tatneft in Russia due to lack of enforcement treaty, uncertainty of reciprocity, expansive public policy exceptions, sanctions, and the nature of Tatneft's assets outside Russia being insufficiently reliable; it is just to order security for costs.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 1400 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: PJSC Tatneft; Defendant/applicant: Gennadiy Bogolyubov; Defendant/applicant: Igor Kolomoisky; Defendant/applicant: Alexander Yaroslavsky; Defendant/applicant: Pavel Ovcharenko
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application / Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Application for security for costs granted
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Public Policy, Sanctions
Civil Procedure International Enforcement Security for Costs Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Public Policy Sanctions

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PJSC Tatneft

Claimant/respondent

Gennadiy Bogolyubov

Defendant/applicant

Igor Kolomoisky

Defendant/applicant

Alexander Yaroslavsky

Defendant/applicant

Pavel Ovcharenko

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application / Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a real risk of substantial obstacles to enforcement of a costs order against Tatneft in Russia
  2. 2 Whether assets in Switzerland and Cyprus eliminate the risk justifying security for costs
  3. 3 Whether it is just to order security for costs

Ratio Decidendi

There is a real risk of substantial obstacles to enforcement of a costs order against Tatneft in Russia due to lack of enforcement treaty, uncertainty of reciprocity, expansive public policy exceptions, sanctions, and the nature of Tatneft's assets outside Russia being insufficiently reliable; it is just to order security for costs.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted

Orders

  • Security for costs to be ordered for entirety of Defendants' costs; quantum to be determined if not agreed