Igor Surkis & Ors v Petro Poroshenko & Anor

Igor Surkis & Ors v Petro Poroshenko & Anor

The claims against the Defendants are barred by state immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978 because the acts complained of were performed in their public capacity as state officials. The claims are further precluded by the act of state doctrine, as they require the court to adjudicate on the lawfulness of sovereign acts of Ukraine. The claims as pleaded lack a real prospect of success and are inadequately particularised, warranting strike out and/or summary dismissal.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Igor Surkis; Claimant/respondent: Camerin Investments LLP; Claimant/respondent: Sunnex Investments LLP; Claimant/respondent: Tamplemon Investments LLP; Claimant/respondent: Berlini Commercial LLP; Claimant/respondent: Lumil Investments LLP; Claimant/respondent: Sofinam Investments LLP; Defendant/applicant: Petro Poroshenko; Defendant/applicant: Valeria Gontareva
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Commercial / Judgment on Applications to Strike Out And/or for Summary Dismissal Based on State Immunity and Act of State Doctrine
Outcome
Claims struck out and/or summary judgment granted in favour of Defendants on grounds of state immunity, act of state doctrine, and lack of real prospect of success.
Legal Topics
State Immunity, Act of State Doctrine, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Lawful Means Conspiracy, Jurisdiction, Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Foreign Sovereign Acts, Bank Nationalisation
Public International Law Civil Procedure Banking Law State Immunity Act of State Doctrine Unlawful Means Conspiracy Lawful Means Conspiracy Jurisdiction +4 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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Igor Surkis

Claimant/respondent

Camerin Investments LLP

Claimant/respondent

Sunnex Investments LLP

Claimant/respondent

Tamplemon Investments LLP

Claimant/respondent

Berlini Commercial LLP

Claimant/respondent

Lumil Investments LLP

Claimant/respondent

Sofinam Investments LLP

Claimant/respondent

Petro Poroshenko

Defendant/applicant

Valeria Gontareva

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Commercial / Judgment on Applications to Strike Out And/or for Summary Dismissal Based on State Immunity and Act of State Doctrine

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claims against the Defendants are barred by state immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978
  2. 2 Whether the claims are precluded by the foreign act of state doctrine
  3. 3 Whether the claims as pleaded have a real prospect of success or should be struck out/summarily dismissed

Ratio Decidendi

The claims against the Defendants are barred by state immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978 because the acts complained of were performed in their public capacity as state officials. The claims are further precluded by the act of state doctrine, as they require the court to adjudicate on the lawfulness of sovereign acts of Ukraine. The claims as pleaded lack a real prospect of success and are inadequately particularised, warranting strike out and/or summary dismissal.

Court Disposition

Claims struck out and/or summary judgment granted in favour of Defendants on grounds of state immunity, act of state doctrine, and lack of real prospect of success.

Orders

  • Claims against both Defendants dismissed/struck out in their entirety.
  • Permission to amend pleadings refused as amendments have no real prospect of success.