JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank & Anor v Pugachev & Ors

JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank & Anor v Pugachev & Ors

The Court of Appeal found a good arguable case that the trust assets are in reality assets of or under the control of Mr Pugachev, that the risk of dissipation persists, and that the Chabra jurisdiction applies. Delay did not bar relief, and expediency concerns regarding New Zealand proceedings could be managed by liberty to apply. The appeal was allowed and the freezing order extended to the trusts and Luxury Consulting Ltd.

Parties
Claimant: JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank; Claimant: State Corporation “Deposit Insurance Agency”; Defendant/respondent: Sergei Viktorovich Pugachev; Respondent: Kea Trust Company Limited; Respondent: Finetree Company Limited; Respondent: Bramerton Company Limited; Respondent: Bluering Company Limited; Respondent: Maru Limited; Respondent: Hapori Limited; Respondent: Miharo Limited; Respondent: Arotau Limited; Respondent: Luxury Consulting Limited; Respondent: Victor Sergeyevitch Pugachev
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Permission to Appeal From Order Refusing Extension of Worldwide Freezing Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed; permission to appeal granted; worldwide freezing order extended to trusts and Luxury Consulting Ltd.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Chabra Jurisdiction, Asset Dissipation, Trust Asset Control, Cross Border Enforcement
Civil Procedure Insolvency Trusts and Equity Freezing Injunctions Chabra Jurisdiction Asset Dissipation Trust Asset Control Cross Border Enforcement

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank

Claimant

State Corporation “Deposit Insurance Agency”

Claimant

Sergei Viktorovich Pugachev

Defendant/respondent

Kea Trust Company Limited

Respondent

Finetree Company Limited

Respondent

Bramerton Company Limited

Respondent

Bluering Company Limited

Respondent

Maru Limited

Respondent

Hapori Limited

Respondent

Miharo Limited

Respondent

Arotau Limited

Respondent

Luxury Consulting Limited

Respondent

Victor Sergeyevitch Pugachev

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Permission to Appeal From Order Refusing Extension of Worldwide Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the worldwide freezing order should be extended to cover trust assets held by third party trustees and related companies under the Chabra jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether there is a good arguable case that the assets are beneficially owned or controlled by Mr Pugachev
  3. 3 Whether delay, risk of dissipation, expediency, and the position of Luxury Consulting Ltd bar the relief sought

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal found a good arguable case that the trust assets are in reality assets of or under the control of Mr Pugachev, that the risk of dissipation persists, and that the Chabra jurisdiction applies. Delay did not bar relief, and expediency concerns regarding New Zealand proceedings could be managed by liberty to apply. The appeal was allowed and the freezing order extended to the trusts and Luxury Consulting Ltd.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; permission to appeal granted; worldwide freezing order extended to trusts and Luxury Consulting Ltd.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted.
  • Worldwide freezing order extended to cover the second to tenth respondents inclusive (trustee companies and Luxury Consulting Ltd).