JSC Bank of Moscow v Kekhman & Ors

JSC Bank of Moscow v Kekhman & Ors

The claimant's pleadings and proposed amendments allege sufficient primary facts to justify an inference of dishonesty and fraud, making an inference of dishonesty more likely than innocence or negligence. There are conflicts of evidence which cannot be resolved at interlocutory stage. Both the existing pleading and the proposed amendment have a real prospect of success. The applications to strike out and for summary judgment are dismissed; permission to amend is granted.

Parties
Claimant: JSC Bank of Moscow; Defendant: Vladimir Abramovich Kekhman; Defendant: JFC Group Holding (BVI) Limited; Defendant: Whilm Management Limited; Defendant: Garold Projects Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Commercial / Interlocutory Applications: Amendment of Pleadings, Strike Out, Summary Judgment
Outcome
applications to strike out and for summary judgment dismissed; permission to amend granted
Legal Topics
Pleading Fraud, Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Conspiracy, Fraudulent Misrepresentation
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Pleading Fraud Summary Judgment Strike Out Conspiracy Fraudulent Misrepresentation

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

Parties

JSC Bank of Moscow

Claimant

Vladimir Abramovich Kekhman

Defendant

JFC Group Holding (BVI) Limited

Defendant

Whilm Management Limited

Defendant

Garold Projects Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial / Interlocutory Applications: Amendment of Pleadings, Strike Out, Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's pleadings properly allege fraud and conspiracy
  2. 2 Whether the claim should be struck out or summary judgment granted
  3. 3 Whether permission to amend to plead fraudulent misrepresentation should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's pleadings and proposed amendments allege sufficient primary facts to justify an inference of dishonesty and fraud, making an inference of dishonesty more likely than innocence or negligence. There are conflicts of evidence which cannot be resolved at interlocutory stage. Both the existing pleading and the proposed amendment have a real prospect of success. The applications to strike out and for summary judgment are dismissed; permission to amend is granted.

Court Disposition

applications to strike out and for summary judgment dismissed; permission to amend granted

Orders

  • Claimant's application to amend granted, subject to submissions about further amendment
  • Defendants' application to strike out dismissed