PJSC Tatneft v Bogolyubov & Ors

PJSC Tatneft v Bogolyubov & Ors

The Court of Appeal held that Tatneft's claim under Article 1064 RCC was properly pleaded and raised an arguable case, that the amendments did not introduce a new cause of action but clarified the factual and legal basis, and that the 2015 Compensation Agreement arguably assigned the relevant claims to Tatneft. The court also found that the claim against the Third Respondent had a real prospect of success. The judge below erred in granting summary judgment and refusing the amendments.

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
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (commercial Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Amendment of Pleadings, Foreign Law Application, Limitation Periods, Assignment of Claims, Tort (general Tort Under Russian Law)
Civil Procedure Private International Law Commercial Law Summary Judgment Amendment of Pleadings Foreign Law Application Limitation Periods Assignment of Claims +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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
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

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (commercial Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim under Article 1064 of the Russian Civil Code (RCC) has a real prospect of success
  2. 2 Whether amendments to the Particulars of Claim raise a new and time-barred cause of action
  3. 3 Whether the 2015 Compensation Agreement assigned the relevant claims to Tatneft

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that Tatneft's claim under Article 1064 RCC was properly pleaded and raised an arguable case, that the amendments did not introduce a new cause of action but clarified the factual and legal basis, and that the 2015 Compensation Agreement arguably assigned the relevant claims to Tatneft. The court also found that the claim against the Third Respondent had a real prospect of success. The judge below erred in granting summary judgment and refusing the amendments.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

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