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.
Parties
Elena Baturina
Claimant
Alexander Chistyakov
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Commercial Dispute / High Court Judgment After Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendant deceived the claimant and committed fraud
- 2 Whether there was a breach of contract under the PPA
- 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.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment