Kazakhstan Kagazy Plc & Ors v Zhunus & Anor [2016] EWCA Civ 1036 (26 October 2016)

Kazakhstan Kagazy Plc & Ors v Zhunus & Anor [2016] EWCA Civ 1036 (26 October 2016)

The Court of Appeal held that D2 and D3 are entitled to serve a contribution notice against Mr Zhunus, even after settlement and stay of proceedings between claimants and Mr Zhunus, as section 1(3) of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 permits such claims. The court further held that a freezing injunction can be granted in support of a contribution claim where proceedings can be issued, and that equitable relief is not automatically denied to alleged fraudsters seeking contribution from each other.

Citation
[2016] EWCA Civ 1036
Parties
Claimant: Kazakhstan Kagazy PLC; Claimant: Kazakhstan Kagazy JSC; Claimant: Prime Estate Activities Kazakhstan LLP; Claimant: Peak Akzhal LLP; Claimant: Peak Aksenger LLP; Claimant: Astana-Contract JSC; Claimant: Paragon Development LLP; Respondent: Baglan Abdullayevich Zhunus; First Appellant: Maksat Askaruly Arip; Second Appellant: Shynar Dikhanbayeva
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (commercial Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Contribution Claims, Freezing Injunctions, Fraud, Limitation Periods, Equitable Relief
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Contribution Claims Freezing Injunctions Fraud Limitation Periods Equitable Relief

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kazakhstan Kagazy PLC

Claimant

Kazakhstan Kagazy JSC

Claimant

Prime Estate Activities Kazakhstan LLP

Claimant

Peak Akzhal LLP

Claimant

Peak Aksenger LLP

Claimant

Astana-Contract JSC

Claimant

Paragon Development LLP

Claimant

Baglan Abdullayevich Zhunus

Respondent

Maksat Askaruly Arip

First Appellant

Shynar Dikhanbayeva

Second Appellant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission should be granted to serve a contribution notice against a settled defendant after settlement and stay of proceedings
  2. 2 Whether a freezing injunction can be granted in support of a contribution claim before liability is established
  3. 3 Whether alleged fraudsters can obtain equitable relief against each other

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that D2 and D3 are entitled to serve a contribution notice against Mr Zhunus, even after settlement and stay of proceedings between claimants and Mr Zhunus, as section 1(3) of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 permits such claims. The court further held that a freezing injunction can be granted in support of a contribution claim where proceedings can be issued, and that equitable relief is not automatically denied to alleged fraudsters seeking contribution from each other.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Permission granted to First and Second Appellants to file and serve a contribution notice against the Respondent in materially the same form as provided on 4 April 2016.
  • Freezing injunction undertakings and cross-undertaking to continue until judgment or further order.