JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank & Anor v Pugachev & Ors [2016] EWHC 248 (Ch) (12 February 2016)

JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank & Anor v Pugachev & Ors [2016] EWHC 248 (Ch) (12 February 2016)

The application to discharge the freezing order for non-disclosure fails because there was no material or culpable non-disclosure by the claimants. The continuation of the freezing order is justified on the merits because there remains a sufficient risk of dissipation of assets, given the conduct of Mr Pugachev, the circumstances of the trustee changes, and the evidence of control over the trust assets. The Chabra jurisdiction is properly invoked in this case.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 248 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank; Claimant: State Corporation 'Deposit Insurance Agency'; Defendant: Sergei Viktorovich Pugachev; Respondent: Kea Trust Company Limited; Respondent: Finetree Company Limited; Respondent: Bramerton Company Limited; Respondent: Bluering Company Limited; Respondent: Maru Limited; Respondent: Hapori Limited; Respondent: Miharo Limited; Respondent: Arotau Limited; Respondent: Luxury Consulting Limited; Respondent: Victor Sergeyevich Pugachev
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Injunction/freezing Order (chabra Jurisdiction) / Application to Discharge or Continue Worldwide Freezing Order (wfo2)
Outcome
Application to discharge the freezing order refused; freezing order continued.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Chabra Jurisdiction, Disclosure Obligations, Risk of Dissipation, Trustee Removal and Appointment, Cross Border Insolvency
Civil Procedure Insolvency Trusts and Equity Freezing Injunctions Chabra Jurisdiction Disclosure Obligations Risk of Dissipation Trustee Removal and Appointment +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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank

Claimant

State Corporation 'Deposit Insurance Agency'

Claimant

Sergei Viktorovich Pugachev

Defendant

Kea Trust Company Limited

Respondent

Finetree Company Limited

Respondent

Bramerton Company Limited

Respondent

Bluering Company Limited

Respondent

Maru Limited

Respondent

Hapori Limited

Respondent

Miharo Limited

Respondent

Arotau Limited

Respondent

Luxury Consulting Limited

Respondent

Victor Sergeyevich Pugachev

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Injunction/freezing Order (chabra Jurisdiction) / Application to Discharge or Continue Worldwide Freezing Order (wfo2)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the worldwide freezing order (WFO2) should be discharged for material non-disclosure or continued on the merits
  2. 2 Whether there was a sufficient risk of dissipation of assets to justify continuation of the injunction
  3. 3 Whether the Chabra jurisdiction was properly invoked against the new trustees

Ratio Decidendi

The application to discharge the freezing order for non-disclosure fails because there was no material or culpable non-disclosure by the claimants. The continuation of the freezing order is justified on the merits because there remains a sufficient risk of dissipation of assets, given the conduct of Mr Pugachev, the circumstances of the trustee changes, and the evidence of control over the trust assets. The Chabra jurisdiction is properly invoked in this case.

Court Disposition

Application to discharge the freezing order refused; freezing order continued.

Orders

  • The worldwide freezing order (WFO2) remains in effect against the new trustees and relevant parties.
  • Costs reserved or to be determined.