PJSC TATNEFT v GENNADIY BOGOLYUBOV & ORS
On 8 November 2016, Mr Justice Picken gave judgment on various applications in a claim brought by the Russian oil company, PJSC Tatneft against four prominent Ukrainian businessmen. The claim was for $334.1 million in compensation under Article 1064 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (“CCRF”), which was said to be the damage arising from an alleged fraudulent scheme involving the unlawful “diversion” of oil payments in 2007. Tatneft had from March 2016 the benefit of a worldwide freezing order for $380 million obtained ex parte (“the WFO”).
Having heard 5 days of argument on the Defendants’ applications to set aside the WFO and/or for summary judgment / strike out, the Judge decided that the proceedings should be brought to an end, coming to the “inescapable conclusion” that the claim was “bound to fail” because the pleading was internally inconsistent and did not disclose any arguable right to compensation under Article 1064 CCRF. He refused Tatneft permission to amend its claim to bring a new cause of action outside the applicable limitation period, discharged the WFO and acceded to applications by the First and Third Defendants, Mr Bogolyubov and Mr Yaroslavsky for reverse summary judgment. Picken J went further by accepting Mr Yaroslavsky’s submissions that the claim against him in particular was brought in breach of the requirement in the CPR and Commercial Court Guide to provide specific details of any allegation of fraud, was “not pursued in a manner which is appropriate” and did not disclose even a serious issue to be tried. Even were the claim to be arguable as against the other Defendants, it could not be permitted to proceed as against Mr Yaroslavsky
The Judge refused Tatneft permission to appeal and awarded Mr Yaroslavsky his costs of the action, including on the indemnity basis from the date of service of his evidence.
Kenneth MacLean QC and Owain Draper acted for Mr Yaroslavsky.
You can view the full Judgment here.