PJSC TATNEFT v Bogolyubov & Ors [2016] EWHC 2816 (Comm) (08 November 2016)

PJSC TATNEFT v Bogolyubov & Ors [2016] EWHC 2816 (Comm) (08 November 2016)

The 2015 Compensation Agreement did not assign to Tatneft the claims against the Defendants now advanced; the language is clear and limited to claims arising under the 2008 Assignment Agreement, the Tatarstan Judgment, and the Russian Enforcement Order. Tatneft therefore lacks standing to bring the present claims. The claim as pleaded and as sought to be amended has no real prospect of success and is struck out. The applications for summary judgment/strike out and to set aside service are granted. The Worldwide Freezing Order is discharged as there is no good arguable case. Permission to amend is refused as the amendments introduce a new, time-barred cause of action.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 2816 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: PJSC Tatneft; First Defendant: Gennadiy Bogolyubov; Second Defendant: Igor Kolomoisky; Third Defendant: Alexander Yaroslavsky; Fourth Defendant: Pavel Ovcharenko; Other Parties: Non-Cause of Action Respondents
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Civil Claim / Interlocutory Applications (summary Judgment, Strike Out, Jurisdiction, Amendment, Freezing Order)
Outcome
Claim struck out/summary judgment for Defendants; Worldwide Freezing Order discharged; permission to amend refused; service out set aside.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Jurisdiction, Freezing Orders, Assignment of Claims, Foreign Law (russian Law), Limitation, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Private International Law Summary Judgment Jurisdiction Freezing Orders Assignment of Claims Foreign Law (russian Law) +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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PJSC Tatneft

Claimant

Gennadiy Bogolyubov

First Defendant

Igor Kolomoisky

Second Defendant

Alexander Yaroslavsky

Third Defendant

Pavel Ovcharenko

Fourth Defendant

Non-Cause of Action Respondents

Other Parties

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Civil Claim / Interlocutory Applications (summary Judgment, Strike Out, Jurisdiction, Amendment, Freezing Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim should be struck out or summary judgment granted for lack of merit
  2. 2 Whether the English court has jurisdiction over the foreign defendants
  3. 3 Whether Tatneft has standing as assignee under the 2015 Compensation Agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The 2015 Compensation Agreement did not assign to Tatneft the claims against the Defendants now advanced; the language is clear and limited to claims arising under the 2008 Assignment Agreement, the Tatarstan Judgment, and the Russian Enforcement Order. Tatneft therefore lacks standing to bring the present claims. The claim as pleaded and as sought to be amended has no real prospect of success and is struck out. The applications for summary judgment/strike out and to set aside service are granted. The Worldwide Freezing Order is discharged as there is no good arguable case. Permission to amend is refused as the amendments introduce a new, time-barred cause of action.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out/summary judgment for Defendants; Worldwide Freezing Order discharged; permission to amend refused; service out set aside.

Orders

  • Claim struck out as disclosing no reasonable grounds and/or no real prospect of success
  • Summary judgment granted for First and Third Defendants