Berezovsky v Abramovich

Berezovsky v Abramovich

The proposed amendments to BB's pleadings do not introduce a new cause of action in relation to Sibneft and are not time-barred. The claim as amended is not so lacking in substance or coherence as to be struck out or summarily dismissed. The issues of law and fact, including the nature of the rights under Russian law, the existence of actionable threats, and the application of the Act of State doctrine, require full trial. The applications to strike out or for summary judgment are refused; permission to amend is granted.

Parties
Claimant: Boris Abramovich Berezovsky; Respondent: Roman Arkadievich Abramovich
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Commercial / Ruling on Applications to Amend Pleadings, Strike Out, and for Summary Judgment
Outcome
Applications to amend pleadings allowed; applications to strike out and for summary judgment refused.
Legal Topics
Intimidation (tort), Trusts and Fiduciary Duties, Conflict of Laws, Summary Judgment, Amendment of Pleadings, Limitation of Actions
Commercial Law Tort Law Private International Law Intimidation (tort) Trusts and Fiduciary Duties Conflict of Laws Summary Judgment Amendment of Pleadings +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 5 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Boris Abramovich Berezovsky

Claimant

Roman Arkadievich Abramovich

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Commercial / Ruling on Applications to Amend Pleadings, Strike Out, and for Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's proposed amendments introduce a new cause of action and are time-barred
  2. 2 Whether the claim discloses a reasonable cause of action for intimidation under English law
  3. 3 Whether the claim should be struck out or summarily dismissed under CPR 3.4(2) and CPR 24.2

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed amendments to BB's pleadings do not introduce a new cause of action in relation to Sibneft and are not time-barred. The claim as amended is not so lacking in substance or coherence as to be struck out or summarily dismissed. The issues of law and fact, including the nature of the rights under Russian law, the existence of actionable threats, and the application of the Act of State doctrine, require full trial. The applications to strike out or for summary judgment are refused; permission to amend is granted.

Court Disposition

Applications to amend pleadings allowed; applications to strike out and for summary judgment refused.

Orders

  • Permission granted to BB to amend the Particulars of Claim and Reply as sought.
  • Applications by RA to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4(2) and for summary judgment under CPR 24.2 are refused.