Fiona Trust Holding Corp & Ors v Privalov & Ors

Fiona Trust Holding Corp & Ors v Privalov & Ors

The claimants have established a good arguable case on the new claims and demonstrated a real risk of dissipation of assets by the defendants, justifying the grant of further freezing orders in the sums specified. The quantum of the claims supports the amounts sought, and the defendants are not entitled to rely on existing security to resist the new orders.

Parties
Claimant: Fiona Trust Holding Corporation & Others; Defendant: Yuri Privalov & Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Commercial Fraud / Interlocutory Application for Amendment and Freezing Orders
Outcome
Application allowed
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Bribery, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Fraud, Disgorgement of Profits, Amendment of Pleadings
Commercial Law Civil Procedure Equity and Trusts Freezing Injunctions Bribery Breach of Fiduciary Duty Fraud Disgorgement of Profits +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fiona Trust Holding Corporation & Others

Claimant

Yuri Privalov & Others

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Commercial Fraud / Interlocutory Application for Amendment and Freezing Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants have a good arguable case for amendment and freezing orders in respect of new claims (RCB claim, Clarkson Commission claim, time charter claims)
  2. 2 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets by the defendants justifying freezing orders
  3. 3 Whether the quantum of the claims supports the amounts sought for freezing orders

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants have established a good arguable case on the new claims and demonstrated a real risk of dissipation of assets by the defendants, justifying the grant of further freezing orders in the sums specified. The quantum of the claims supports the amounts sought, and the defendants are not entitled to rely on existing security to resist the new orders.

Court Disposition

Application allowed

Orders

  • Leave to amend statement of case to add Clarkson Commission Claim and RCB claim.
  • Further freezing order against Mr Nikitin's assets up to $377 million (with proportionate orders against relevant defendant companies).