JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank & Anor v Pugachev [2015] EWHC 1586 (Ch) (05 June 2015)

JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank & Anor v Pugachev [2015] EWHC 1586 (Ch) (05 June 2015)

The risk of the Defendant fleeing the jurisdiction remains sufficient to justify the continued retention of his passports. The Defendant has not demonstrated that his personal attendance in France is necessary or that the protections offered would adequately mitigate the flight risk. The balance of risks favours maintaining the passport order to ensure compliance with disclosure obligations and the effectiveness of the freezing order.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 1586 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank; Claimant: State Corporation 'Deposit Insurance Agency'; Defendant: Sergei Viktorovich Pugachev
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application in Civil Proceedings (chancery Division) / Application for Variation/suspension of Passport Retention Order
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Passport Retention, Disclosure Obligations, Flight Risk, Proportionality of Injunctions
Civil Procedure Asset Freezing Injunctions Freezing Orders Passport Retention Disclosure Obligations Flight Risk Proportionality of Injunctions

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank

Claimant

State Corporation 'Deposit Insurance Agency'

Claimant

Sergei Viktorovich Pugachev

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application in Civil Proceedings (chancery Division) / Application for Variation/suspension of Passport Retention Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant's application for suspension of the passport retention order should be granted to allow travel to France for a court hearing
  2. 2 Whether the risk of flight justifies continued retention of the Defendant's passports
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant's attendance at the French hearing is necessary and outweighs the risk

Ratio Decidendi

The risk of the Defendant fleeing the jurisdiction remains sufficient to justify the continued retention of his passports. The Defendant has not demonstrated that his personal attendance in France is necessary or that the protections offered would adequately mitigate the flight risk. The balance of risks favours maintaining the passport order to ensure compliance with disclosure obligations and the effectiveness of the freezing order.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • The Defendant's application for suspension of the passport retention order is refused.
  • The Passport Order as previously made continues in force.