Kazakhstan Kagazy Plc & Ors v Zhunus & Ors

Kazakhstan Kagazy Plc & Ors v Zhunus & Ors

The court found, to the criminal standard, that Mr. Arip was properly served, intentionally failed to attend court, and that his conduct demonstrated an obstructive dimension justifying a suspended committal order under CPR 71.8.

Parties
Claimant: Kazakhstan Kagazy PLC; Claimant: Kazakhstan Kagazy JSC; Claimant: Prime Estate Activities Kazakhstan LLP; Claimant: Peak Akzhal LLP; Claimant: Astana-Contract JSC; Claimant: Paragon Development LLP; Defendant: Baglan Abdullayevich Zhunus (formerly Baglan Abdullayevich Zhunussov); Defendant: Maksat Askaruly Arip; Defendant: Shynar Dikhanbayeva; Additional Party: Harbour Fund III LP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Commercial Enforcement / Committal Application / Hearing and Determination of Suspended Committal Order Application
Outcome
Suspended committal order granted against Mr. Arip; costs awarded to claimants.
Legal Topics
Committal for Contempt, Enforcement of Judgments, Jurisdiction, Costs Assessment
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Committal for Contempt Enforcement of Judgments Jurisdiction Costs Assessment

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kazakhstan Kagazy PLC

Claimant

Kazakhstan Kagazy JSC

Claimant

Prime Estate Activities Kazakhstan LLP

Claimant

Peak Akzhal LLP

Claimant

Astana-Contract JSC

Claimant

Paragon Development LLP

Claimant

Baglan Abdullayevich Zhunus (formerly Baglan Abdullayevich Zhunussov)

Defendant

Maksat Askaruly Arip

Defendant

Shynar Dikhanbayeva

Defendant

Harbour Fund III LP

Additional Party

Procedural Posture

Commercial Enforcement / Committal Application / Hearing and Determination of Suspended Committal Order Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to make a committal order against a judgment debtor outside the jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether the judgment debtor was properly served and intentionally failed to attend court
  3. 3 Whether the circumstances justify a suspended committal order under CPR 71.8

Ratio Decidendi

The court found, to the criminal standard, that Mr. Arip was properly served, intentionally failed to attend court, and that his conduct demonstrated an obstructive dimension justifying a suspended committal order under CPR 71.8.

Court Disposition

Suspended committal order granted against Mr. Arip; costs awarded to claimants.

Orders

  • Mr. Arip committed to prison for 14 days for failure to attend court on 17 July 2019, committal suspended provided he attends court for cross-examination on a date to be fixed.
  • Costs summarily assessed and awarded to claimants in the sum of £27,507.55 on the indemnity basis.