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

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

The freezing injunction is discharged due to the claimant's failure to comply with the duty of full and frank disclosure in the without notice application, including not drawing the judge's attention to material facts regarding knowledge of the sale and the non-clandestine nature of the defendant's actions. The claimant did not establish a sufficient risk of dissipation or a good arguable case for the monetary relief sought to justify continuation of the injunction.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 1529 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Andrey Rogachev; Defendant: Mikhail Goryainov
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 June 2019
Procedural Posture
High Court Civil Claim (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, Fiduciary Duties, Disclosure Obligations, Risk of Dissipation, Arbitration
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Equity Freezing Injunctions Proprietary Injunctions Joint Ventures Breach of Contract Constructive Trust +4 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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrey Rogachev

Claimant

Mikhail Goryainov

Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the freezing injunction should be continued or discharged for non-disclosure and lack of good arguable case
  2. 2 Whether the claimant has a good arguable case for damages or equitable compensation
  3. 3 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets by the defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The freezing injunction is discharged due to the claimant's failure to comply with the duty of full and frank disclosure in the without notice application, including not drawing the judge's attention to material facts regarding knowledge of the sale and the non-clandestine nature of the defendant's actions. The claimant did not establish a sufficient risk of dissipation or a good arguable case for the monetary relief sought to justify continuation of the injunction.

Court Disposition

Freezing injunction discharged; application for proprietary injunction refused

Orders

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