Rochester Resources Ltd & Ors v Lebedev & Anor [2014] EWHC 2185 (Comm) (02 July 2014)

Rochester Resources Ltd & Ors v Lebedev & Anor [2014] EWHC 2185 (Comm) (02 July 2014)

The draft Complaint and related communications were sent as the first step in genuine settlement negotiations and are protected by without prejudice privilege under English law. The substance and context of the communications indicate they were not merely a letter before action but an invitation to negotiate, and thus are inadmissible as evidence in support of the anti-suit injunction application.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 2185 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Rochester Resources Limited; Claimant: Viktor F. Vekselberg; Claimant: Leonard V. Blavatnik; Defendant: Leonid L. Lebedev; Defendant: Coral Petroleum Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application / Interlocutory Application to Exclude Evidence
Outcome
Application granted; evidence excluded.
Legal Topics
Without Prejudice Privilege, Admissibility of Evidence, Anti Suit Injunctions, Conflict of Laws
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Evidence Without Prejudice Privilege Admissibility of Evidence Anti Suit Injunctions Conflict of Laws

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rochester Resources Limited

Claimant

Viktor F. Vekselberg

Claimant

Leonard V. Blavatnik

Claimant

Leonid L. Lebedev

Defendant

Coral Petroleum Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application / Interlocutory Application to Exclude Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the draft Complaint and related communications are protected by without prejudice privilege under English law and thus inadmissible as evidence in support of an anti-suit injunction application.

Ratio Decidendi

The draft Complaint and related communications were sent as the first step in genuine settlement negotiations and are protected by without prejudice privilege under English law. The substance and context of the communications indicate they were not merely a letter before action but an invitation to negotiate, and thus are inadmissible as evidence in support of the anti-suit injunction application.

Court Disposition

Application granted; evidence excluded.

Orders

  • Claimants refused permission to adduce expert evidence of New York law.
  • Draft Complaint and related communications excluded from evidence as protected by without prejudice privilege.