JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank & Anor v Pugachev & Ors [2014] EWHC 3547 (Ch) (30 October 2014)

JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank & Anor v Pugachev & Ors [2014] EWHC 3547 (Ch) (30 October 2014)

The court has jurisdiction to order disclosure relating to the trusts to ascertain the true position regarding the defendant's control over trust assets, even where he is only a discretionary beneficiary. The evidence supports good grounds for believing the defendant may control the assets. The application to discharge or vary the trust disclosure order fails, subject to restricting disclosure of Russian assets to those within the court's jurisdiction.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 3547 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank; Claimant/respondent: State Corporation "Deposit Insurance Agency"; Defendant: Sergei Viktorovich Pugachev; Applicants: Kea Trust Company Limited & Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Application to Discharge or Vary Disclosure Order in Freezing Injunction Proceedings / Post Interim Freezing Order, Application to Discharge or Vary Trust Disclosure Order
Outcome
Application dismissed (save for restriction on confidentiality club membership for Russian assets)
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Disclosure Orders, Trust Asset Control, Confidentiality Regimes, Jurisdiction Over Trusts, Cross Border Insolvency
Civil Procedure Trusts and Equity Insolvency International Law Freezing Injunctions Disclosure Orders Trust Asset Control Confidentiality Regimes +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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank

Claimant/respondent

State Corporation "Deposit Insurance Agency"

Claimant/respondent

Sergei Viktorovich Pugachev

Defendant

Kea Trust Company Limited & Others

Applicants

Procedural Posture

Application to Discharge or Vary Disclosure Order in Freezing Injunction Proceedings / Post Interim Freezing Order, Application to Discharge or Vary Trust Disclosure Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to order disclosure of trust assets where the defendant is a discretionary beneficiary
  2. 2 Whether the trust disclosure order should be discharged or varied on grounds of confidentiality, lack of jurisdiction, or absence of cross-undertaking in damages
  3. 3 Whether the trustees are directly affected and entitled to apply to vary/discharge the order

Ratio Decidendi

The court has jurisdiction to order disclosure relating to the trusts to ascertain the true position regarding the defendant's control over trust assets, even where he is only a discretionary beneficiary. The evidence supports good grounds for believing the defendant may control the assets. The application to discharge or vary the trust disclosure order fails, subject to restricting disclosure of Russian assets to those within the court's jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed (save for restriction on confidentiality club membership for Russian assets)

Orders

  • Trustees' application to discharge or vary the trust disclosure order is dismissed.
  • Disclosure of Russian trust assets is restricted to those subject to the jurisdiction of the English court, with liberty to apply for wider disclosure.