Great Station Properties SA & Anor v UMS Holding Ltd & Ors

Great Station Properties SA & Anor v UMS Holding Ltd & Ors

The findings of the arbitration tribunal regarding the deliberate diversion of profits and use of controlled companies by Mr. Grigorishin constitute solid evidence of a real risk of dissipation of assets. This risk is increased by evidence of lack of probity in dealings with Ukrainian authorities and the substitution of bearer investment certificates for traceable shares. Discretionary factors such as delay, absence of English assets, and related proceedings in Cyprus do not outweigh the need to grant a WFO post-judgment where there is a substantial unsatisfied award and judgment.

Parties
Claimant: Great Station Properties S.A.; Claimant: Inter Growth Investments Limited; Respondent: UMS Holding Limited; Respondent: Energy Standard Fund Limited; Respondent: Energy Standard Industries Limited; Respondent: Stremvol Holdings Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Claim / Post Award Enforcement / Application for Worldwide Freezing Order After Judgment
Outcome
Worldwide Freezing Order granted in support of enforcement of arbitration award and judgment.
Legal Topics
Worldwide Freezing Order, Enforcement of Arbitration Award, Risk of Dissipation, Asset Tracing
Arbitration Civil Procedure Commercial Law Worldwide Freezing Order Enforcement of Arbitration Award Risk of Dissipation Asset Tracing

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Great Station Properties S.A.

Claimant

Inter Growth Investments Limited

Claimant

UMS Holding Limited

Respondent

Energy Standard Fund Limited

Respondent

Energy Standard Industries Limited

Respondent

Stremvol Holdings Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Claim / Post Award Enforcement / Application for Worldwide Freezing Order After Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets justifying a Worldwide Freezing Order (WFO) post-judgment
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of the Grigorishin Respondents supports the risk of dissipation
  3. 3 Whether delay or other discretionary factors should preclude the grant of a WFO

Ratio Decidendi

The findings of the arbitration tribunal regarding the deliberate diversion of profits and use of controlled companies by Mr. Grigorishin constitute solid evidence of a real risk of dissipation of assets. This risk is increased by evidence of lack of probity in dealings with Ukrainian authorities and the substitution of bearer investment certificates for traceable shares. Discretionary factors such as delay, absence of English assets, and related proceedings in Cyprus do not outweigh the need to grant a WFO post-judgment where there is a substantial unsatisfied award and judgment.

Court Disposition

Worldwide Freezing Order granted in support of enforcement of arbitration award and judgment.

Orders

  • Worldwide Freezing Order in standard Commercial Court form, with exceptions for dealing with assets in the ordinary course of business (with notification to Claimants' lawyers) and for legal expenses related to disclosure obligations (subject to notification and possible variation).