Rogachev v Goryainov

Rogachev v Goryainov

The freezing injunction was discharged due to material non-disclosure and misleading presentation by the claimant, including failure to correct delay, insufficient investigation of facts, and lack of a good arguable case for monetary relief. The proprietary injunction was refused as damages were an adequate remedy, the balance of convenience did not favour the claimant, fortification was insufficient, and delay was relevant.

Parties
Claimant: Andrey Rogachev; Defendant: Mikhail Goryainov
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Applications for Continuation/discharge of Freezing Injunction and Proprietary Injunction
Outcome
Freezing injunction discharged; applications for fresh freezing injunction and proprietary injunction dismissed.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Proprietary Injunctions, Duty of Full and Frank Disclosure, Joint Venture Disputes, Breach of Contract, Constructive Trust, Equitable Compensation
Civil Procedure Equity Contract Law Freezing Injunctions Proprietary Injunctions Duty of Full and Frank Disclosure Joint Venture Disputes Breach of Contract +2 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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrey Rogachev

Claimant

Mikhail Goryainov

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Applications for Continuation/discharge of Freezing Injunction and Proprietary Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the freezing injunction should be continued or discharged
  2. 2 Whether the claimant has a good arguable case for monetary relief
  3. 3 Whether the claimant complied with the duty of full and frank disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

The freezing injunction was discharged due to material non-disclosure and misleading presentation by the claimant, including failure to correct delay, insufficient investigation of facts, and lack of a good arguable case for monetary relief. The proprietary injunction was refused as damages were an adequate remedy, the balance of convenience did not favour the claimant, fortification was insufficient, and delay was relevant.

Court Disposition

Freezing injunction discharged; applications for fresh freezing injunction and proprietary injunction dismissed.

Orders

  • Freezing injunction discharged
  • Applications for fresh freezing injunction and proprietary injunction dismissed