Rogachev v Goryainov [2019] EWHC 1529 (QB) (14 June 2019)

Rogachev v Goryainov [2019] EWHC 1529 (QB) (14 June 2019)

The freezing injunction was obtained on a without notice basis but the applicant failed to comply with the duty of full and frank disclosure in several material respects, including not drawing the judge's attention to facts undermining the urgency and risk of dissipation. The applicant also failed to correct the judge's misunderstanding about the timing of discovery of the proposed sale. These failures were material to the grant of the injunction. The court found that the applicant did not establish a sufficient risk of dissipation or a good arguable case for the quantum claimed. Accordingly, the freezing injunction should be discharged. The application for an interim proprietary...

Citation
[2019] EWHC 1529
Parties
Claimant: Andrey Rogachev; Defendant: Mikhail Goryainov
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 June 2019
Procedural Posture
High Court Civil Proceedings (queen's Bench Division) / Interlocutory Applications Regarding Freezing and Proprietary Injunctions
Outcome
Freezing injunction discharged; application for proprietary injunction refused
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Proprietary Injunctions, Joint Ventures, Breach of Contract, Constructive Trust, Full and Frank Disclosure, Risk of Dissipation, Arbitration
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Equity Freezing Injunctions Proprietary Injunctions Joint Ventures Breach of Contract Constructive Trust +3 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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrey Rogachev

Claimant

Mikhail Goryainov

Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Civil Proceedings (queen's Bench Division) / Interlocutory Applications Regarding Freezing and Proprietary Injunctions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the freezing injunction should be continued or discharged
  2. 2 Whether the applicant failed in the duty of full and frank disclosure
  3. 3 Whether there is a good arguable case for damages or equitable compensation

Ratio Decidendi

The freezing injunction was obtained on a without notice basis but the applicant failed to comply with the duty of full and frank disclosure in several material respects, including not drawing the judge's attention to facts undermining the urgency and risk of dissipation. The applicant also failed to correct the judge's misunderstanding about the timing of discovery of the proposed sale. These failures were material to the grant of the injunction. The court found that the applicant did not establish a sufficient risk of dissipation or a good arguable case for the quantum claimed. Accordingly, the freezing injunction should be discharged. The application for an interim proprietary...

Court Disposition

Freezing injunction discharged; application for proprietary injunction refused

Orders

  • The worldwide freezing injunction against the defendant is discharged.
  • The application for an interim proprietary injunction is refused.