PJSC Tatneft v Bogolyubov & Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 1581 (18 October 2017)

PJSC Tatneft v Bogolyubov & Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 1581 (18 October 2017)

The Court of Appeal held that Tatneft's claim under Article 1064 RCC is arguable and has a real prospect of success, as the essential factual basis is the Oil Payment Siphoning Scheme, and harm includes economic benefits foregone. The amendments to the Particulars of Claim do not constitute a new cause of action but clarify the factual basis, and causation raises factual issues unsuitable for summary determination. The judge's conclusions on harm, causation, and amendment were incorrect, and summary judgment should not have been granted. Permission to amend grounds of appeal and application notice was allowed.

Citation
[2017] EWCA Civ 1581
Parties
Appellant/claimant: PJSC Tatneft; First Respondent/defendant: Gennadiy Bogolyubov; Second Respondent/defendant: Igor Kolomoisky; Third Respondent/defendant: Alexander Yaroslavsky; Fourth Respondent/defendant: Pavel Ovcharenko
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Amendment of Pleadings, Foreign Law Application, Worldwide Freezing Order, Limitation Periods, Tort Under Russian Law
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Private International Law Summary Judgment Amendment of Pleadings Foreign Law Application Worldwide Freezing Order Limitation Periods +1 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PJSC Tatneft

Appellant/claimant

Gennadiy Bogolyubov

First Respondent/defendant

Igor Kolomoisky

Second Respondent/defendant

Alexander Yaroslavsky

Third Respondent/defendant

Pavel Ovcharenko

Fourth Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Tatneft's claim under Article 1064 of the Russian Civil Code has real prospect of success
  2. 2 Whether amendments to the Particulars of Claim constitute a new and time-barred cause of action
  3. 3 Whether permission should be granted to amend grounds of appeal and application notice

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that Tatneft's claim under Article 1064 RCC is arguable and has a real prospect of success, as the essential factual basis is the Oil Payment Siphoning Scheme, and harm includes economic benefits foregone. The amendments to the Particulars of Claim do not constitute a new cause of action but clarify the factual basis, and causation raises factual issues unsuitable for summary determination. The judge's conclusions on harm, causation, and amendment were incorrect, and summary judgment should not have been granted. Permission to amend grounds of appeal and application notice was allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Summary judgment set aside
  • Permission to amend Particulars of Claim granted