Vneshprombank LLC v Bedzhamov & Ors

Vneshprombank LLC v Bedzhamov & Ors

The court held that no review of the Reduced 83k Pool should commence and that all seized material should be preserved to the order of the Supervising Solicitor, with any further review requiring a fresh application justified by normal disclosure principles. The exceptional circumstances, disproportionate impact, delays, and lack of material value justified revisiting the consent protocol and halting further review.

Parties
Claimant: Vneshprombank LLC; First Defendant: Georgy Ivanovich Bedzhamov; Second Defendant: Unifleet Technology Limited; Third Defendant: Persons Unknown; Respondent: Basel Properties Limited NCA; Third Party: Maxim Golodnitsky; Third Party: Berkley Square Investment Partners Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Judgment on Search Order and Related Issues
Outcome
No review of the Reduced 83k Pool to proceed; seized material preserved; liberty to apply; further review only by fresh application; full discharge to be reconsidered at or following trial.
Legal Topics
Search Orders, Disclosure, Confidentiality, Case Management, Costs
Civil Procedure Injunctions Evidence Search Orders Disclosure Confidentiality Case Management Costs

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

Parties

Vneshprombank LLC

Claimant

Georgy Ivanovich Bedzhamov

First Defendant

Unifleet Technology Limited

Second Defendant

Persons Unknown

Third Defendant

Basel Properties Limited NCA

Respondent

Maxim Golodnitsky

Third Party

Berkley Square Investment Partners Limited

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Judgment on Search Order and Related Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Search Order should be discharged or the review of the Reduced 83k Pool should commence
  2. 2 Whether any review of the Reduced 83k Pool could be streamlined and accommodated within the current trial timetable
  3. 3 How costs should be addressed if the Search Order is discharged

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that no review of the Reduced 83k Pool should commence and that all seized material should be preserved to the order of the Supervising Solicitor, with any further review requiring a fresh application justified by normal disclosure principles. The exceptional circumstances, disproportionate impact, delays, and lack of material value justified revisiting the consent protocol and halting further review.

Court Disposition

No review of the Reduced 83k Pool to proceed; seized material preserved; liberty to apply; further review only by fresh application; full discharge to be reconsidered at or following trial.

Orders

  • Imaged documents to be preserved in the safekeeping of Epiq or another forensic expert, to the order of the Supervising Solicitor.
  • Any further search or review requires a fresh application to the court.