Sukhoruchkin & Ors v Van Bekestein & Ors

Sukhoruchkin & Ors v Van Bekestein & Ors

The claimants do not have a good arguable case for continuation of freezing or proprietary injunctions in relation to Parts I and II of the alleged wrongdoing, as their claims are clearly barred by the no reflective loss principle and are at best borderline as to whether there is a serious issue to be tried. The proprietary injunctions sought are not justified given the weakness of the claims. As regards Part III (Telnic payment), the court will defer decision pending Hadar Fund Ltd’s application.

Parties
Claimant: Pavel Sukhoruchkin; Claimant: Hurley Investment Holdings Limited; Claimant: Pavel Novoselov; Claimant: Vickgram Holdings Limited; Defendant: Marc Giebels van Bekestein; Defendant: Sanjit Talukdar; Defendant: Ametista Patrimonal (Mauritius) Limited; Defendant: PNT Capital Advisors; Defendant: Blue Pearl Advisors Limited; Defendant: Telnic Limited; Defendant: Ametista Patrimonial SA
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Continuation of Injunctions
Outcome
Application for continuation of injunctions in relation to Parts I and II refused; interim order made in relation to Part III pending Hadar Fund Ltd’s application.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunction, Proprietary Injunction, Fiduciary Duty, Reflective Loss, Breach of Contract, Asset Dissipation
Equity Company Law Civil Procedure Freezing Injunction Proprietary Injunction Fiduciary Duty Reflective Loss Breach of Contract +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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pavel Sukhoruchkin

Claimant

Hurley Investment Holdings Limited

Claimant

Pavel Novoselov

Claimant

Vickgram Holdings Limited

Claimant

Marc Giebels van Bekestein

Defendant

Sanjit Talukdar

Defendant

Ametista Patrimonal (Mauritius) Limited

Defendant

PNT Capital Advisors

Defendant

Blue Pearl Advisors Limited

Defendant

Telnic Limited

Defendant

Ametista Patrimonial SA

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Continuation of Injunctions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants have a good arguable case for continuation of freezing and proprietary injunctions
  2. 2 Whether fiduciary duties were owed by defendants to claimants
  3. 3 Whether claims are barred by the no reflective loss principle

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants do not have a good arguable case for continuation of freezing or proprietary injunctions in relation to Parts I and II of the alleged wrongdoing, as their claims are clearly barred by the no reflective loss principle and are at best borderline as to whether there is a serious issue to be tried. The proprietary injunctions sought are not justified given the weakness of the claims. As regards Part III (Telnic payment), the court will defer decision pending Hadar Fund Ltd’s application.

Court Disposition

Application for continuation of injunctions in relation to Parts I and II refused; interim order made in relation to Part III pending Hadar Fund Ltd’s application.

Orders

  • Proprietary and freezing injunctions not continued for Parts I and II.
  • Interim injunction in relation to $2.2 million (half of Telnic payment) pending Hadar Fund Ltd’s application.