Darnitsa v Metabay Import/Export Ltd [2021] EWHC 1441 (Comm) (28 May 2021)

Darnitsa v Metabay Import/Export Ltd [2021] EWHC 1441 (Comm) (28 May 2021)

There is a good arguable case against Metabay under the Chabra jurisdiction, based on the Ukrainian proceedings and the evidence of control and beneficial ownership of the funds by Iryna Bezpalko and/or her family. There is a real risk of dissipation of assets, given the unexplained agency agreement, the lack of directors, and the circumstances of the alleged fraud. No material non-disclosure or lack of full and frank disclosure was found that would justify discharge of the order. The freezing order is continued, subject to minor amendments.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 1441 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Private Joint Stock Company "Pharmaceutical Firm "Darnitsa"; Defendant: Metabay Import/Export Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Injunction / Worldwide Freezing Order (wfo) / Return Date Hearing on Continuation/discharge of Ex Parte WFO
Outcome
Application to discharge the freezing order dismissed; freezing order continued with minor amendments.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Chabra Jurisdiction, Shareholder Derivative Actions, Interim Relief in Support of Foreign Proceedings, Risk of Dissipation, Full and Frank Disclosure
Civil Procedure Commercial Law International Law Freezing Injunctions Chabra Jurisdiction Shareholder Derivative Actions Interim Relief in Support of Foreign Proceedings Risk of Dissipation +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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Private Joint Stock Company "Pharmaceutical Firm "Darnitsa"

Claimant

Metabay Import/Export Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Injunction / Worldwide Freezing Order (wfo) / Return Date Hearing on Continuation/discharge of Ex Parte WFO

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a good arguable case against Metabay for the purposes of a Chabra freezing order in support of Ukrainian proceedings
  2. 2 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets justifying continuation of the freezing order
  3. 3 Whether there was any material non-disclosure or lack of full and frank disclosure justifying discharge of the order

Ratio Decidendi

There is a good arguable case against Metabay under the Chabra jurisdiction, based on the Ukrainian proceedings and the evidence of control and beneficial ownership of the funds by Iryna Bezpalko and/or her family. There is a real risk of dissipation of assets, given the unexplained agency agreement, the lack of directors, and the circumstances of the alleged fraud. No material non-disclosure or lack of full and frank disclosure was found that would justify discharge of the order. The freezing order is continued, subject to minor amendments.

Court Disposition

Application to discharge the freezing order dismissed; freezing order continued with minor amendments.

Orders

  • Worldwide freezing order against Metabay continued until 7 days after judgment in the Ukrainian proceedings or further order.
  • Disclosure order clarified to limit scope to policing the freezing order.