Danilina v Chernukhin & Ors [2017] EWHC 3052 (Comm) (05 December 2017)

Danilina v Chernukhin & Ors [2017] EWHC 3052 (Comm) (05 December 2017)

The court was not persuaded that special and cogent reasons existed to justify release from the collateral use prohibition. There was real doubt as to whether the application was genuinely brought to protect Ms. Danilina's rights under the Data Protection Act, as opposed to being driven by Mr. Deripaska for his own...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 3052 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Lolita Vladimirovna Danilina; Defendant: Vladimir Anatolevich Chernukhin; Defendant: Navigator Equities Limited; Defendant: Vadim Kargin
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Application Under CPR 31.22(1)(b) in Ongoing Commercial Proceedings / Interlocutory Application for Release From Collateral Use Prohibition
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Collateral Use of Disclosed Documents, Data Protection Act 1998, Subject Access Requests, Confidentiality in Arbitration, Disclosure in Litigation
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Data Protection Collateral Use of Disclosed Documents Data Protection Act 1998 Subject Access Requests Confidentiality in Arbitration Disclosure in Litigation

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lolita Vladimirovna Danilina

Claimant

Vladimir Anatolevich Chernukhin

Defendant

Navigator Equities Limited

Defendant

Vadim Kargin

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application Under CPR 31.22(1)(b) in Ongoing Commercial Proceedings / Interlocutory Application for Release From Collateral Use Prohibition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether special and cogent reasons exist to release the applicant from the collateral use prohibition under CPR 31.22(1)(b)
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's rights under the Data Protection Act 1998 justify collateral use of disclosed documents

Ratio Decidendi

The court was not persuaded that special and cogent reasons existed to justify release from the collateral use prohibition. There was real doubt as to whether the application was genuinely brought to protect Ms. Danilina's rights under the Data Protection Act, as opposed to being driven by Mr. Deripaska for his own litigation interests. The limited nature of the intended use and absence of prejudice to the respondent were insufficient to amount to special reasons.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed