Gaydamak v Leviev [2012] EWHC 1740 (Ch) (29 June 2012)

Gaydamak v Leviev [2012] EWHC 1740 (Ch) (29 June 2012)

The court found that the 2001 Agreement was not signed by Leviev and was not enforceable. Even if it had been, the Settlement Agreement of 6 August 2011, which was validly executed by both parties and not procured by actionable fraud or misrepresentation attributable to Leviev, operated as a full and final settlement and release of all claims. There was no sufficient evidence that General Kopelipa had actual or apparent authority to bind Leviev to any promise of compensation, nor that Leviev was aware of or complicit in any alleged fraud. Accordingly, Gaydamak's claims failed.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 1740 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Arkady Gaydamak; Defendant: Lev Leviev
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Enforceability of Unsigned Agreements, Settlement Agreements, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Authority of Agents, Trusts and Beneficial Ownership, Confidentiality Clauses
Commercial Law Equity and Trusts Contract Law Enforceability of Unsigned Agreements Settlement Agreements Fraudulent Misrepresentation Authority of Agents Trusts and Beneficial Ownership +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arkady Gaydamak

Claimant

Lev Leviev

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2001 Agreement was signed and enforceable
  2. 2 Whether the Settlement Agreement compromised the claims
  3. 3 Whether the Settlement Agreement was procured by fraud or misrepresentation

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the 2001 Agreement was not signed by Leviev and was not enforceable. Even if it had been, the Settlement Agreement of 6 August 2011, which was validly executed by both parties and not procured by actionable fraud or misrepresentation attributable to Leviev, operated as a full and final settlement and release of all claims. There was no sufficient evidence that General Kopelipa had actual or apparent authority to bind Leviev to any promise of compensation, nor that Leviev was aware of or complicit in any alleged fraud. Accordingly, Gaydamak's claims failed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • All claims by Arkady Gaydamak against Lev Leviev are dismissed.
  • Each party to bear their own legal costs as per the Settlement Agreement.