Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation & Ors v Yuri Privalov & Ors [2014] EWHC 3102 (Comm) (03 October 2014)

Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation & Ors v Yuri Privalov & Ors [2014] EWHC 3102 (Comm) (03 October 2014)

The court held that, although Mr Nikitin's misconduct was relevant and attributable to the corporate applicants, the claimants were seriously and culpably in breach of their duties of disclosure and misrepresented material facts when obtaining the freezing orders. The impropriety of the claimants in obtaining the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 3102 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation & ors; Defendant: Yuri Privalov & ors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Proceedings / Post Trial Application for Inquiry Into Damages Under Cross Undertakings Following Freezing Orders
Outcome
Application granted for inquiry into damages under cross-undertakings.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Cross Undertakings in Damages, Equitable Discretion, Disclosure Obligations, Assessment of Damages
Commercial Law Civil Procedure Freezing Orders Cross Undertakings in Damages Equitable Discretion Disclosure Obligations Assessment of Damages

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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation & ors

Claimant

Yuri Privalov & ors

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Proceedings / Post Trial Application for Inquiry Into Damages Under Cross Undertakings Following Freezing Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether cross-undertakings in damages given in support of freezing orders should be enforced
  2. 2 Whether claimants' or defendants' conduct precludes enforcement of undertakings
  3. 3 Whether sufficient evidence of loss exists to justify an inquiry into damages

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, although Mr Nikitin's misconduct was relevant and attributable to the corporate applicants, the claimants were seriously and culpably in breach of their duties of disclosure and misrepresented material facts when obtaining the freezing orders. The impropriety of the claimants in obtaining the orders outweighed the misconduct of the applicants, and it would not be inequitable to direct an inquiry into damages. Sufficient evidence of potential loss was adduced to justify such an inquiry.

Court Disposition

Application granted for inquiry into damages under cross-undertakings.

Orders

  • Directions to be made for an inquiry into damages suffered as a result of the 2005 and 2007 freezing orders.