Kazakhstan Kagazy Plc & Ors v Zhunus & Ors [2013] EWHC 3618 (Comm) (20 November 2013)

Kazakhstan Kagazy Plc & Ors v Zhunus & Ors [2013] EWHC 3618 (Comm) (20 November 2013)

The court held that, on the material available, the Claimants had a much better argument that they were not aware and should not have been aware of the alleged frauds before August 2010, so the claims of the Second to Seventh Claimants were not time-barred. The First Claimant's claims were barred by the reflective loss principle unless the Giles v Rhind exception applied, which was not established on the current case. There was no material non-disclosure sufficient to justify discharge of the injunction. The Claimants had a good arguable case on the merits and the injunction should be continued.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 3618 (Comm)
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; Defendant: Baglan Abdullayevich Zhunus; Defendant: Maksat Askaruly Arip; Defendant: Shynar Dikhanbayeva
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application (freezing Injunction) / Interlocutory Application to Discharge or Continue Freezing Injunction
Outcome
Freezing injunction continued against the Second Defendant; application to discharge refused.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Non Disclosure, Limitation Periods, Reflective Loss, Jurisdiction, Disclosure Obligations
Commercial Law Fraud Civil Procedure Freezing Injunctions Non Disclosure Limitation Periods Reflective Loss Jurisdiction +1 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 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
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

Defendant

Maksat Askaruly Arip

Defendant

Shynar Dikhanbayeva

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application (freezing Injunction) / Interlocutory Application to Discharge or Continue Freezing Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the freezing injunction should be discharged for material non-disclosure or lack of good arguable case
  2. 2 Whether the claims of the Second to Seventh Claimants are time-barred under Kazakh law
  3. 3 Whether the reflective loss principle bars the First Claimant's claims

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, on the material available, the Claimants had a much better argument that they were not aware and should not have been aware of the alleged frauds before August 2010, so the claims of the Second to Seventh Claimants were not time-barred. The First Claimant's claims were barred by the reflective loss principle unless the Giles v Rhind exception applied, which was not established on the current case. There was no material non-disclosure sufficient to justify discharge of the injunction. The Claimants had a good arguable case on the merits and the injunction should be continued.

Court Disposition

Freezing injunction continued against the Second Defendant; application to discharge refused.

Orders

  • The freezing injunction against the Second Defendant is continued until final judgment or further order.
  • The application to discharge the injunction for non-disclosure or lack of good arguable case is refused.