Chodiev & Ors v Stein [2016] EWHC 1210 (Comm) (16 May 2016)

Chodiev & Ors v Stein [2016] EWHC 1210 (Comm) (16 May 2016)

The court has power under CPR31.22(2) and inherent jurisdiction to restrict use of disclosed documents, but the presumption of open justice prevails unless specific and sufficient reasons for restriction are shown. Generic assertions of confidentiality are insufficient; only bank details warrant restriction.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 1210 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Patokh Chodiev; Claimant: Alexander Machkevitch; Claimant: Alijan Ibragimov; Defendant: Kirill Stein
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Application / Judgment on Application for Restriction of Document Use Under Cpr31.22(2)
Outcome
application granted in part, refused in part
Legal Topics
Use of Disclosed Documents, Open Justice, Confidentiality, Cpr31.22, Fraud in Litigation
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Use of Disclosed Documents Open Justice Confidentiality Cpr31.22 Fraud in Litigation

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

Parties

Patokh Chodiev

Claimant

Alexander Machkevitch

Claimant

Alijan Ibragimov

Claimant

Kirill Stein

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application / Judgment on Application for Restriction of Document Use Under Cpr31.22(2)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the court have power under CPR31.22(2) to restrict use of documents disclosed and referred to at a public hearing?
  2. 2 Should the court exercise its discretion to restrict use of such documents in the interests of justice and confidentiality?

Ratio Decidendi

The court has power under CPR31.22(2) and inherent jurisdiction to restrict use of disclosed documents, but the presumption of open justice prevails unless specific and sufficient reasons for restriction are shown. Generic assertions of confidentiality are insufficient; only bank details warrant restriction.

Court Disposition

application granted in part, refused in part

Orders

  • Order prohibiting use of bank details contained in Abacus documents; otherwise, no restriction imposed on use of documents.