PJSC TATNEFT v Bogolyubov & Ors

PJSC TATNEFT v Bogolyubov & Ors

Tatneft’s claims as pleaded disclosed no real prospect of success and no serious issue to be tried because (1) the 2015 Compensation Agreement did not assign to Tatneft the relevant claims against the Defendants; (2) the claim under Article 1064 of the Russian Civil Code was fundamentally flawed as the pleaded facts showed no actionable harm, unlawful act, or causation; (3) the amendments sought to introduce a new and time-barred cause of action; (4) the claim was, in any event, time-barred; and (5) the freezing order could not be maintained as there was no good arguable case. The case against Mr Yaroslavsky was also inadequately pleaded. Permission to amend was refused and all...

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 Civil (summary Judgment, Jurisdictional Challenge, Freezing Order) / Interlocutory Applications (summary Judgment, Strike Out, Jurisdictional Challenge, Amendment, Freezing Order)
Outcome
All applications by the Defendants granted; claim dismissed; freezing order discharged; permission to amend refused.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Jurisdictional Challenge, Freezing Injunction (mareva), Assignment of Claims, Limitation of Actions, Foreign Law (russian Law), Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Private International Law Commercial Law Summary Judgment Jurisdictional Challenge Freezing Injunction (mareva) Assignment of Claims Limitation of Actions +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 6 Authorities cited 25 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 Civil (summary Judgment, Jurisdictional Challenge, Freezing Order) / Interlocutory Applications (summary Judgment, Strike Out, Jurisdictional Challenge, Amendment, Freezing Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim discloses a real prospect of success under CPR 24 and/or a serious issue to be tried for jurisdictional purposes
  2. 2 Whether Tatneft had standing as assignee under the 2015 Compensation Agreement to bring the claim
  3. 3 Whether the claim under Article 1064 of the Russian Civil Code is viable on the pleaded facts

Ratio Decidendi

Tatneft’s claims as pleaded disclosed no real prospect of success and no serious issue to be tried because (1) the 2015 Compensation Agreement did not assign to Tatneft the relevant claims against the Defendants; (2) the claim under Article 1064 of the Russian Civil Code was fundamentally flawed as the pleaded facts showed no actionable harm, unlawful act, or causation; (3) the amendments sought to introduce a new and time-barred cause of action; (4) the claim was, in any event, time-barred; and (5) the freezing order could not be maintained as there was no good arguable case. The case against Mr Yaroslavsky was also inadequately pleaded. Permission to amend was refused and all...

Court Disposition

All applications by the Defendants granted; claim dismissed; freezing order discharged; permission to amend refused.

Orders

  • Order setting aside permission to serve out of the jurisdiction on Mr Kolomoisky and Mr Ovcharenko
  • Summary judgment for Mr Bogolyubov and Mr Yaroslavsky