Danilina v Chernukhin & Ors

Danilina v Chernukhin & Ors

The court was not persuaded that special and cogent reasons existed to justify releasing Ms. Danilina from the collateral use prohibition, given doubts as to whether the application was genuinely brought to protect her rights under the Data Protection Act or was instead motivated by Mr. Deripaska's ongoing dispute with Mr. Chernukhin.

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
Commercial Court Application / Application for Release From Collateral Use Prohibition on Disclosed Documents
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Collateral Use of Disclosed Documents, Data Protection Act 1998, Subject Access Requests, Confidentiality in Arbitration
Civil Procedure Data Protection Collateral Use of Disclosed Documents Data Protection Act 1998 Subject Access Requests Confidentiality in Arbitration

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 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

Commercial Court Application / Application for Release From Collateral Use Prohibition on Disclosed Documents

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 such release

Ratio Decidendi

The court was not persuaded that special and cogent reasons existed to justify releasing Ms. Danilina from the collateral use prohibition, given doubts as to whether the application was genuinely brought to protect her rights under the Data Protection Act or was instead motivated by Mr. Deripaska's ongoing dispute with Mr. Chernukhin.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed