Chernukhin and Anor v Deripaska and Anor 11-Feb-2021 [2021] JRC 039 (11 February 2021)

Chernukhin and Anor v Deripaska and Anor 11-Feb-2021 [2021] JRC 039 (11 February 2021)

The application to amend the pleading to allege a duty of care owed by the Representors' advocates or English lawyers to the First Respondent is disallowed as hopeless, as the requirements for such a duty are not satisfied. The application to amend to allege a duty owed to the Court by those swearing affidavits in ex parte applications is allowed as arguable. The application to plead a wasted costs order is allowed, as there is no legal requirement for a separate application or joinder. The request for further information regarding share registration is allowed as relevant; the request regarding current ownership is refused as irrelevant. The issue of waiver of privilege is reserved for...

Citation
[2021] JRC 039
Parties
Representors: Chernukhin and Anor; First Respondent: Deripaska and Anor
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
11 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil / Pre Trial Review; Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
Applications allowed in part and refused in part.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Duty of Care of Advocates, Wasted Costs, Waiver of Privilege, Requests for Further Information
Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Duty of Care of Advocates Wasted Costs Waiver of Privilege Requests for Further Information

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 27 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chernukhin and Anor

Representors

Deripaska and Anor

First Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Pre Trial Review; Interlocutory Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether amendments to pleadings should be allowed at this stage
  2. 2 Whether a duty of care is owed by advocates or English lawyers to the opposing party in ex parte applications
  3. 3 Whether wasted costs claims can be pleaded or require separate application

Ratio Decidendi

The application to amend the pleading to allege a duty of care owed by the Representors' advocates or English lawyers to the First Respondent is disallowed as hopeless, as the requirements for such a duty are not satisfied. The application to amend to allege a duty owed to the Court by those swearing affidavits in ex parte applications is allowed as arguable. The application to plead a wasted costs order is allowed, as there is no legal requirement for a separate application or joinder. The request for further information regarding share registration is allowed as relevant; the request regarding current ownership is refused as irrelevant. The issue of waiver of privilege is reserved for...

Court Disposition

Applications allowed in part and refused in part.

Orders

  • Amendment to plead duty of care to First Respondent refused.
  • Amendment to plead duty to Court by deponents in ex parte applications allowed.