Chodiev & Ors v Stein

Chodiev & Ors v Stein

The Claimants' application to set aside the judgment is dismissed because the alleged fresh evidence regarding the Defendant's ownership of Aurdeley could have been obtained with reasonable diligence before trial, and even if the Defendant lied, it would not have changed the outcome given the corroborative evidence and the Claimants' own dishonesty. The applications to amend the Particulars of Claim and to set aside the interest and costs orders are also dismissed as unarguable and unsupported by fresh evidence.

Parties
Claimant: Patokh Chodiev; Claimant: Alexander Machkevitch; Claimant: Alijan Ibragimov; Defendant: Kirill Ace Stein
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Commercial Fraud Action (application to Set Aside Judgment) / Application to Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed; application to strike out granted; application to amend dismissed
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Judgment for Fraud, Fresh Evidence, Reasonable Diligence Requirement, Interest on Judgment and Costs, Agency, Illegality Defence
Commercial Law Civil Procedure Setting Aside Judgment for Fraud Fresh Evidence Reasonable Diligence Requirement Interest on Judgment and Costs Agency Illegality Defence

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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patokh Chodiev

Claimant

Alexander Machkevitch

Claimant

Alijan Ibragimov

Claimant

Kirill Ace Stein

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Fraud Action (application to Set Aside Judgment) / Application to Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judgment in favour of the Defendant was obtained by fraud
  2. 2 Whether fresh evidence justifies setting aside the judgment
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant's alleged lies about ownership of Aurdeley would have changed the outcome

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimants' application to set aside the judgment is dismissed because the alleged fresh evidence regarding the Defendant's ownership of Aurdeley could have been obtained with reasonable diligence before trial, and even if the Defendant lied, it would not have changed the outcome given the corroborative evidence and the Claimants' own dishonesty. The applications to amend the Particulars of Claim and to set aside the interest and costs orders are also dismissed as unarguable and unsupported by fresh evidence.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; application to strike out granted; application to amend dismissed

Orders

  • Claimants' claim to set aside judgment is struck out and dismissed
  • Claimants' application to amend Particulars of Claim is dismissed