Gorbunova v Berezovsky (aka Platon Elenin) & Ors

Gorbunova v Berezovsky (aka Platon Elenin) & Ors

The evidence demonstrated a sufficient risk of dissipation regarding specific assets (Wentworth Park proceeds, litigation settlement proceeds, French Properties) to justify a freezing order without notice, but not a general risk justifying a broad freezing of assets. No breach of undertaking occurred as simultaneous service was legitimate and known to the judge. The order must be modified to restrain only specific assets at risk.

Parties
Claimant: Helena Gorbunova; Defendant: Boris Berezovsky (also known as Platon Elenin); Defendant: Société d’Investissements France Immeubles (SIFI); Defendant: Ovaco AG; Defendant: Comodo Limited; Defendant: LMC Trustees Limited; Defendant: Fotopark Limited; Defendant: Steelville Limited; Defendant: Mr Lev Krant
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Application to Discharge Interim Freezing Order / Inter Partes Hearing on Discharge/modification of Freezing Order
Outcome
Order modified; general freezing order discharged; asset-specific restraints to continue.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Without Notice Applications, Risk of Dissipation, Breach of Undertaking, Asset Restraint, Children Act Claims
Civil Procedure Family Law Trusts and Equity Freezing Injunctions Without Notice Applications Risk of Dissipation Breach of Undertaking Asset Restraint +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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Helena Gorbunova

Claimant

Boris Berezovsky (also known as Platon Elenin)

Defendant

Société d’Investissements France Immeubles (SIFI)

Defendant

Ovaco AG

Defendant

Comodo Limited

Defendant

LMC Trustees Limited

Defendant

Fotopark Limited

Defendant

Steelville Limited

Defendant

Mr Lev Krant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Discharge Interim Freezing Order / Inter Partes Hearing on Discharge/modification of Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the freezing order should be discharged or modified
  2. 2 Whether the application was properly made without notice
  3. 3 Whether there was sufficient evidence of risk of dissipation

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence demonstrated a sufficient risk of dissipation regarding specific assets (Wentworth Park proceeds, litigation settlement proceeds, French Properties) to justify a freezing order without notice, but not a general risk justifying a broad freezing of assets. No breach of undertaking occurred as simultaneous service was legitimate and known to the judge. The order must be modified to restrain only specific assets at risk.

Court Disposition

Order modified; general freezing order discharged; asset-specific restraints to continue.

Orders

  • Restraint on dealing with French Properties proceeds, litigation settlement proceeds, and £5m from Wentworth Park proceeds (if extant)
  • Disclosure required regarding status of specified assets