Baturina v Chistyakov [2017] EWHC 1049 (Comm) (10 May 2017)

Baturina v Chistyakov [2017] EWHC 1049 (Comm) (10 May 2017)

The court found that Ms Baturina failed to prove deceit or breach of fiduciary duty by Mr Chistyakov. The PPA was a legally binding contract, but the evidence did not establish that Mr Chistyakov made false representations or misused funds in breach of duty. The losses claimed were not recoverable on the facts and law as pleaded.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 1049 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Elena Baturina; Defendant: Alexander Chistyakov
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Commercial Dispute / High Court Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Deceit, Breach of Contract, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Joint Venture, Misuse of Funds

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elena Baturina

Claimant

Alexander Chistyakov

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Dispute / High Court Judgment After Trial

  1. 1 Whether the defendant deceived the claimant and committed fraud
  2. 2 Whether there was a breach of contract under the PPA
  3. 3 Whether there was a breach of fiduciary duty by the defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Ms Baturina failed to prove deceit or breach of fiduciary duty by Mr Chistyakov. The PPA was a legally binding contract, but the evidence did not establish that Mr Chistyakov made false representations or misused funds in breach of duty. The losses claimed were not recoverable on the facts and law as pleaded.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • All claims by Ms Baturina against Mr Chistyakov are dismissed.
  • No order for damages or specific performance.