PSJC Commercial Bank Privatbank v Kolomoisky & Ors

PSJC Commercial Bank Privatbank v Kolomoisky & Ors

The court held that while disclosure of the underlying contractual documents was not necessary, the sixth to eighth defendants must provide further information including the dates of contracts, nature of goods/services, explanations for missing repayment dates, whether repayments are secured, estimated realisable value, and details of payments made. This information is necessary to enable the claimant to police the freezing order and decide on further steps. The court declined to order disclosure of the contracts themselves or speculative future bank account details, as these were not necessary for policing the order.

Parties
Claimant/applicant: PSJC Commercial Bank PrivatBank; Defendant: Igor Valeryevich Kolomoisky; Defendant: Gennadiy Borisovich Bogolyubov; Defendant: Teamtrend Limited; Defendant: Trade Point Agro Limited; Defendant: Collyer Limited; Defendant: Rossyn Investing Corp; Defendant: Milbert Ventures Inc; Defendant: ZAO Ukrtransitservice Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Commercial Asset Freezing/disclosure Application / Interlocutory Application for Further Disclosure Under Worldwide Freezing Order
Outcome
Application granted in part, refused in part
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Ancillary Disclosure, Asset Tracing, Jurisdiction of English Courts, Interpretation of Court Orders
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Freezing Orders Ancillary Disclosure Asset Tracing Jurisdiction of English Courts Interpretation of Court Orders

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PSJC Commercial Bank PrivatBank

Claimant/applicant

Igor Valeryevich Kolomoisky

Defendant

Gennadiy Borisovich Bogolyubov

Defendant

Teamtrend Limited

Defendant

Trade Point Agro Limited

Defendant

Collyer Limited

Defendant

Rossyn Investing Corp

Defendant

Milbert Ventures Inc

Defendant

ZAO Ukrtransitservice Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Asset Freezing/disclosure Application / Interlocutory Application for Further Disclosure Under Worldwide Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether further disclosure by the sixth to eighth defendants is required under the terms of the worldwide freezing order and/or as a matter of just and convenient ancillary relief
  2. 2 Whether disclosure of underlying contractual documents and additional information is necessary for policing the freezing order

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that while disclosure of the underlying contractual documents was not necessary, the sixth to eighth defendants must provide further information including the dates of contracts, nature of goods/services, explanations for missing repayment dates, whether repayments are secured, estimated realisable value, and details of payments made. This information is necessary to enable the claimant to police the freezing order and decide on further steps. The court declined to order disclosure of the contracts themselves or speculative future bank account details, as these were not necessary for policing the order.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part, refused in part

Orders

  • Sixth to eighth defendants to provide affidavits setting out for each asset: date of contract, nature of goods/services, explanation for missing repayment dates, whether repayment is secured and value of security, estimated realisable value, and details of payments made and their destination accounts.
  • No order for disclosure of underlying contracts or speculative future bank account details.