JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank & Anor v Pugachev & Ors

JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank & Anor v Pugachev & Ors

The court dismissed the trustees' applications to vary the freezing order because the applicants failed to demonstrate that Mr. Pugachev or the beneficiaries had no other assets available, there was insufficient evidence of need, and the application was in substance for Mr. Pugachev's benefit. The regime under the current freezing order was intended to preserve trust assets, and the court would not grant a variation to the trustees where it would not grant it to Mr. Pugachev directly.

Parties
Claimant: JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank; Claimant: State Corporation 'Deposit Insurance Agency'; Defendant: Sergei Viktorovich Pugachev; Defendant: Kea Trust Company Limited; Defendant: Finetree Company Limited; Defendant: Bramerton Company Limited; Defendant: Bluering Company Limited; Defendant: Maru Limited; Defendant: Hapori Limited; Defendant: Miharo Limited; Defendant: Arotau Limited; Defendant: Luxury Consulting Limited; Defendant: Victor Sergeyevitch Pugachev
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Variation of Freezing Order
Outcome
applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Variation of Court Orders, Chabra Jurisdiction, Trustee Powers, Living and Legal Expenses Under Freezing Orders
Civil Procedure Trusts and Equity Freezing Injunctions Variation of Court Orders Chabra Jurisdiction Trustee Powers Living and Legal Expenses Under Freezing Orders

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank

Claimant

State Corporation 'Deposit Insurance Agency'

Claimant

Sergei Viktorovich Pugachev

Defendant

Kea Trust Company Limited

Defendant

Finetree Company Limited

Defendant

Bramerton Company Limited

Defendant

Bluering Company Limited

Defendant

Maru Limited

Defendant

Hapori Limited

Defendant

Miharo Limited

Defendant

Arotau Limited

Defendant

Luxury Consulting Limited

Defendant

Victor Sergeyevitch Pugachev

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Variation of Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the freezing order (WFO2) should be varied to permit trustees to make payments for living and legal expenses to or for the benefit of Mr. Pugachev and other beneficiaries
  2. 2 Whether the amount frozen under the order should be reduced

Ratio Decidendi

The court dismissed the trustees' applications to vary the freezing order because the applicants failed to demonstrate that Mr. Pugachev or the beneficiaries had no other assets available, there was insufficient evidence of need, and the application was in substance for Mr. Pugachev's benefit. The regime under the current freezing order was intended to preserve trust assets, and the court would not grant a variation to the trustees where it would not grant it to Mr. Pugachev directly.

Court Disposition

applications dismissed