Alexander Gorbachev v Andrey Grigoryevich Guriev

Alexander Gorbachev v Andrey Grigoryevich Guriev

The claimant failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant made any oral declaration of trust in 2005 or 2008 or that he had any beneficial interest in 24.75% of the defendant’s shares in PhosAgro. The claimant’s evidence was inconsistent, uncorroborated, and contradicted by documents, conduct, and the surrounding circumstances. The First and Second Option Agreements were found to be genuine, not shams, and the only interest ever held by the claimant was a 5% option, which was exercised and paid out. Payments to the claimant were ad hoc support, not evidence of a trust or beneficial ownership. The claim was dismissed in its entirety.

Parties
Claimant: Alexander Gorbachev; Defendant: Andrey Grigoryevich Guriev
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial Court) / Final Judgment After Trial of Liability Issues
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Oral Declaration of Trust, Constructive Trust, Proprietary Estoppel, Beneficial Ownership of Shares, Credibility of Witnesses, Sham Transactions, Limitation Periods, Disclosure Obligations in Ipos
Trusts Equity Commercial Law Oral Declaration of Trust Constructive Trust Proprietary Estoppel Beneficial Ownership of Shares Credibility of Witnesses +3 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexander Gorbachev

Claimant

Andrey Grigoryevich Guriev

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial Court) / Final Judgment After Trial of Liability Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant orally declared himself trustee of shares for the claimant in 2005 and/or 2008 under English law
  2. 2 Whether the claimant had a beneficial interest in 24.75% of the defendant’s shares in PJSC PhosAgro
  3. 3 Whether the claimant’s case is supported by credible evidence or corroboration

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant made any oral declaration of trust in 2005 or 2008 or that he had any beneficial interest in 24.75% of the defendant’s shares in PhosAgro. The claimant’s evidence was inconsistent, uncorroborated, and contradicted by documents, conduct, and the surrounding circumstances. The First and Second Option Agreements were found to be genuine, not shams, and the only interest ever held by the claimant was a 5% option, which was exercised and paid out. Payments to the claimant were ad hoc support, not evidence of a trust or beneficial ownership. The claim was dismissed in its entirety.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claim is dismissed in its entirety.