Magdeev v Tsvetkov

Magdeev v Tsvetkov

The Conspiracy Claim against Mr Gaynulin, insofar as it concerns Mr Tsvetkov’s liability under the Primary Claim, is self-defeating and must be struck out or dismissed by summary judgment because any loss is cancelled by set-off/circuity of action and is barred by reflective loss. The new heads of loss (Employment Loss, Turetskiy Loss, Investigation Loss) are either reflective, not recoverable as damages, or insufficiently particularised, and thus have no realistic prospect of success. Liberty to apply is granted in case the Supreme Court decision in Marex alters the law before trial.

Parties
Claimant: Mr Rustem Magdeev; Defendant: Mr Dimitry Tsvetkov; First Additional Party: Mr Emil Gaynulin; Second Additional Party: Equix Diamonds DMCC (previously EK Diamonds DMCC); Third Additional Party: Equix Group Limited (previously EK Luxury Goods Limited)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application / Application for Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment
Outcome
Claim struck out and summary judgment granted dismissing Conspiracy Claim against Mr Gaynulin; liberty to apply granted for reinstatement if Supreme Court alters reflective loss law before trial.
Legal Topics
Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Reflective Loss, Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Guarantee Liability, Implied Terms, Set Off, Circuity of Action
Commercial Law Tort Law Company Law Unlawful Means Conspiracy Reflective Loss Summary Judgment Strike Out Guarantee Liability +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 6 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Rustem Magdeev

Claimant

Mr Dimitry Tsvetkov

Defendant

Mr Emil Gaynulin

First Additional Party

Equix Diamonds DMCC (previously EK Diamonds DMCC)

Second Additional Party

Equix Group Limited (previously EK Luxury Goods Limited)

Third Additional Party

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application / Application for Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Conspiracy Claim against Mr Gaynulin should be struck out or dismissed by summary judgment
  2. 2 Whether losses claimed are barred by the principle of reflective loss
  3. 3 Whether the Conspiracy Claim is factually incoherent

Ratio Decidendi

The Conspiracy Claim against Mr Gaynulin, insofar as it concerns Mr Tsvetkov’s liability under the Primary Claim, is self-defeating and must be struck out or dismissed by summary judgment because any loss is cancelled by set-off/circuity of action and is barred by reflective loss. The new heads of loss (Employment Loss, Turetskiy Loss, Investigation Loss) are either reflective, not recoverable as damages, or insufficiently particularised, and thus have no realistic prospect of success. Liberty to apply is granted in case the Supreme Court decision in Marex alters the law before trial.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out and summary judgment granted dismissing Conspiracy Claim against Mr Gaynulin; liberty to apply granted for reinstatement if Supreme Court alters reflective loss law before trial.

Orders

  • Strike out of Conspiracy Claim against Mr Gaynulin as currently pleaded
  • Summary judgment dismissing Conspiracy Claim against Mr Gaynulin