Blue Tropic Ltd & Anor v Chkhartishvili

Blue Tropic Ltd & Anor v Chkhartishvili

The Defendant, Vano, was not the beneficial owner of the Claimant companies or their assets. He misappropriated the assets by procuring their transfer to companies he owned or controlled, without authority or consideration, in breach of Article 992 of the Georgian Civil Code. The claims are not time-barred as neither the Claimants' agents nor directors knew or ought to have known of the misappropriation at the relevant time. The amendment to plead a direct delict claim was not a new claim but a further particularisation of the same cause of action. The Defendant is liable to compensate the Claimants for the harm caused; quantum to be determined in a further inquiry.

Parties
Claimant: Blue Tropic Limited; Claimant: Coppella Ventures Limited; Defendant: Ivane Chkhartishvili
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil (chancery Division) / Judgment After Trial on Liability Only
Outcome
Claim allowed; Defendant liable for damages for breach of Article 992 of the Georgian Civil Code; Counterclaim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Misappropriation of Assets, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Limitation of Actions, Application of Foreign Law (georgian Law), Powers of Attorney, Beneficial Ownership, Trust Structures, Procedural Amendments
Private International Law Trusts and Equity Tort/delict Company Law Misappropriation of Assets Breach of Fiduciary Duty Limitation of Actions Application of Foreign Law (georgian Law) +4 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Blue Tropic Limited

Claimant

Coppella Ventures Limited

Claimant

Ivane Chkhartishvili

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (chancery Division) / Judgment After Trial on Liability Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant misappropriated assets belonging to the Claimants in breach of Article 992 of the Georgian Civil Code
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant was the beneficial owner of the Claimant companies or their assets
  3. 3 Whether the claims are time-barred under Georgian law

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant, Vano, was not the beneficial owner of the Claimant companies or their assets. He misappropriated the assets by procuring their transfer to companies he owned or controlled, without authority or consideration, in breach of Article 992 of the Georgian Civil Code. The claims are not time-barred as neither the Claimants' agents nor directors knew or ought to have known of the misappropriation at the relevant time. The amendment to plead a direct delict claim was not a new claim but a further particularisation of the same cause of action. The Defendant is liable to compensate the Claimants for the harm caused; quantum to be determined in a further inquiry.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; Defendant liable for damages for breach of Article 992 of the Georgian Civil Code; Counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay damages to the Claimants for misappropriation of assets; quantum to be determined in a further inquiry.
  • Counterclaim dismissed.