Chodiev & Ors v Stein [2015] EWHC 1428 (Comm) (20 May 2015)

Chodiev & Ors v Stein [2015] EWHC 1428 (Comm) (20 May 2015)

The Claimants' action to set aside the previous judgment fails because the alleged fresh evidence regarding the Defendant's ownership of Aurdeley was either available or could have been obtained with reasonable diligence at the original trial, and in any event is not material such as to have probably affected the outcome. The requirements for setting aside a judgment for fraud are not met. The claim discloses no real prospect of success and is struck out.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 1428 (Comm)
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 Court Claim to Set Aside Previous Judgment for Alleged Fraud / Application by Defendant to Strike Out And/or for Summary Judgment on Claimants' Action to Set Aside Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed; summary judgment for Defendant; claim struck out.
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Judgments for Fraud, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications, Finality of Litigation, Fresh Evidence Requirements
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Setting Aside Judgments for Fraud Summary Judgment Strike Out Applications Finality of Litigation Fresh Evidence Requirements

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patokh Chodiev

Claimant

Alexander Machkevitch

Claimant

Alijan Ibragimov

Claimant

Kirill Ace Stein

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim to Set Aside Previous Judgment for Alleged Fraud / Application by Defendant to Strike Out And/or for Summary Judgment on Claimants' Action to Set Aside Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimants' action to set aside the previous judgment on grounds of fraud discloses a real prospect of success
  2. 2 Whether the alleged fresh evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence at the original trial
  3. 3 Whether the alleged fraud or perjury is sufficiently particularised and material to the original judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimants' action to set aside the previous judgment fails because the alleged fresh evidence regarding the Defendant's ownership of Aurdeley was either available or could have been obtained with reasonable diligence at the original trial, and in any event is not material such as to have probably affected the outcome. The requirements for setting aside a judgment for fraud are not met. The claim discloses no real prospect of success and is struck out.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; summary judgment for Defendant; claim struck out.

Orders

  • Claimants' action to set aside judgment is struck out and/or summary judgment entered for Defendant.
  • Claimants to pay Defendant's costs.