Otkritie Capital International Ltd & Anor v Threadneedle Asset Management Ltd & Anor [2015] EWHC 2329 (Comm) (07 August 2015)

Otkritie Capital International Ltd & Anor v Threadneedle Asset Management Ltd & Anor [2015] EWHC 2329 (Comm) (07 August 2015)

Although the Claimants breached the Aldi requirement by not referring the potential claim against Threadneedle to the court during the 2011 Litigation, this breach alone does not amount to an abuse of process. Applying a broad merits-based judgment, the court found that the circumstances did not justify striking out the claim, as there was no unjust harassment, oppression, or substantial prejudice, and legitimate reasons existed for the Claimants' litigation strategy.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 2329 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Otkritie Capital International Ltd; Claimant: JSC Otkritie Holding; Defendant: Threadneedle Asset Management Limited; Defendant: Threadneedle Management Services Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Litigation (application to Strike Out Claim) / Application to Strike Out Claim as Abuse of Process
Outcome
Application to strike out the claim refused; 2014 Litigation may proceed.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Case Management, Vicarious Liability, Finality in Litigation
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Abuse of Process Case Management Vicarious Liability Finality in Litigation

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Otkritie Capital International Ltd

Claimant

JSC Otkritie Holding

Claimant

Threadneedle Asset Management Limited

Defendant

Threadneedle Management Services Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Litigation (application to Strike Out Claim) / Application to Strike Out Claim as Abuse of Process

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim against Threadneedle in the 2014 Litigation is an abuse of process for not being joined in the 2011 Litigation
  2. 2 Whether breach of the Aldi requirement (to refer potential claims to the court for case management) mandates striking out the claim

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Claimants breached the Aldi requirement by not referring the potential claim against Threadneedle to the court during the 2011 Litigation, this breach alone does not amount to an abuse of process. Applying a broad merits-based judgment, the court found that the circumstances did not justify striking out the claim, as there was no unjust harassment, oppression, or substantial prejudice, and legitimate reasons existed for the Claimants' litigation strategy.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out the claim refused; 2014 Litigation may proceed.