Tsareva & Ors v Ananyev & Ors

Tsareva & Ors v Ananyev & Ors

There is no real issue to be tried against the English companies or Menrela; thus, they cannot serve as anchor defendants for jurisdiction under any gateway. The court lacks jurisdiction over all other defendants under the Brussels Regulation (Recast) and CPR PD 6B. No claim survives against any defendant, and no basis exists for freezing orders or Chabra relief.

Parties
Claimant: Elena Nikolaevna Tsareva and 8 others; Claimant: Vladimir Ivanovich Galagaev and 6 others; Defendant: Dmitri Ananyev; Defendant: Alexei Ananyev; Defendant: Antracite Investment Limited; Defendant: Urgula Platinum Limited; Defendant: Menrela Limited; Defendant: Promsvyaz Capital B.V.; Defendant: Peters International (Cayman) Limited; Defendant: Peters International Investment NV; Defendant: Postscriptum Capital Limited; Defendant: Fintailor Investments Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Civil Claim (multi Party, Cross Border) / Interlocutory Judgment on Jurisdiction, Strike Out, and Interim Relief (freezing Orders)
Outcome
Claims against English companies struck out; proceedings against all other defendants set aside; freezing orders and joinder applications dismissed; funds paid into court by Dmitri Ananyev to be returned.
Legal Topics
Jurisdictional Gateways, Strike Out Applications, Freezing Injunctions, Chabra Jurisdiction, Misrepresentation, Conspiracy, Tort Claims, Contract Claims
Private International Law Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Jurisdictional Gateways Strike Out Applications Freezing Injunctions Chabra Jurisdiction Misrepresentation +3 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elena Nikolaevna Tsareva and 8 others

Claimant

Vladimir Ivanovich Galagaev and 6 others

Claimant

Dmitri Ananyev

Defendant

Alexei Ananyev

Defendant

Antracite Investment Limited

Defendant

Urgula Platinum Limited

Defendant

Menrela Limited

Defendant

Promsvyaz Capital B.V.

Defendant

Peters International (Cayman) Limited

Defendant

Peters International Investment NV

Defendant

Postscriptum Capital Limited

Defendant

Fintailor Investments Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Civil Claim (multi Party, Cross Border) / Interlocutory Judgment on Jurisdiction, Strike Out, and Interim Relief (freezing Orders)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction over the defendants under Brussels Regulation (Recast) and CPR PD 6B gateways
  2. 2 Whether claims against English companies and Menrela disclose a real issue to be tried
  3. 3 Whether freezing orders should be granted or maintained against any defendant

Ratio Decidendi

There is no real issue to be tried against the English companies or Menrela; thus, they cannot serve as anchor defendants for jurisdiction under any gateway. The court lacks jurisdiction over all other defendants under the Brussels Regulation (Recast) and CPR PD 6B. No claim survives against any defendant, and no basis exists for freezing orders or Chabra relief.

Court Disposition

Claims against English companies struck out; proceedings against all other defendants set aside; freezing orders and joinder applications dismissed; funds paid into court by Dmitri Ananyev to be returned.

Orders

  • Claims against English companies struck out
  • Proceedings against all other defendants set aside for want of jurisdiction