New Media Distribution Company Sezc Ltd v Kagalovsky

New Media Distribution Company Sezc Ltd v Kagalovsky

The defendant is estopped from asserting the protective purpose alleged in the proposed amended defence due to detailed findings of fact by the New York court, and there is no real prospect of establishing a genuine belief in the matters set out in the proposed amendments. Permission to amend is refused for paragraphs 16, 17, 19, and 15 of the proposed defence.

Parties
Claimant: New Media Distribution Company SEZC Limited; Defendant: Konstantin Grigoryevich Kagalovsky
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Preliminary Issue and Application to Amend Defence
Outcome
Permission to amend defence refused in respect of paragraphs 16, 17, 19, and 15; other amendments permitted.
Legal Topics
Issue Estoppel, Abuse of Process, Transactions at Undervalue, Section 423 Insolvency Act 1986, Amendment of Pleadings
Insolvency Civil Procedure Estoppel Issue Estoppel Abuse of Process Transactions at Undervalue Section 423 Insolvency Act 1986 Amendment of Pleadings

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

New Media Distribution Company SEZC Limited

Claimant

Konstantin Grigoryevich Kagalovsky

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Preliminary Issue and Application to Amend Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is estopped from making certain allegations in his defence
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's proposed amendments amount to an abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's purpose in effecting the Dilution can be pleaded as a defence under s423 IA 1986

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant is estopped from asserting the protective purpose alleged in the proposed amended defence due to detailed findings of fact by the New York court, and there is no real prospect of establishing a genuine belief in the matters set out in the proposed amendments. Permission to amend is refused for paragraphs 16, 17, 19, and 15 of the proposed defence.

Court Disposition

Permission to amend defence refused in respect of paragraphs 16, 17, 19, and 15; other amendments permitted.

Orders

  • Proposed amended paragraphs 16, 17, 19, and 15 of the defence not permitted to proceed to trial.
  • Parties invited to submit an agreed order; unresolved issues to be resolved at further hearing.