The full judgment from the $bn legal battle between Roman Abramovich and his business partner Boris Berezovsky. This is my judgment in relation to Mr. Berezovky’s (“the Claimant”) application for an order for enhanced disclosure, pursuant to CPR (1). Mr. Rabinowitz QC. Mr Berezovsky’s initial stance in relation to this application was to say that the As appears from Mann J’s earlier judgment, Mr Abramovich sought to strike out.
|Published (Last):||26 November 2012|
|PDF File Size:||6.86 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||16.63 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
English contract case law in British law in case law High Court of Justice cases. This is my judgment in relation to Mr. Of more concern to Mr Berezovsky was the potential delay from appeals. We can reject it at this stage of the argument. The defendants say that proceeding in that way would be a proper way iudgment dealing with the most significant area of overlap between the various sets of proceedings, would avoid inconsistent results in the two actions ebrezovsky those issues, would be workable, would be fair and would not lengthen the Abramovich action to an unacceptable extent.
Saturday 29 December This is the judgment of both of us, delivered as a result of a joint case management conference in the four cases identified in the heading to this judgment. Parker v Clark  1 WLR We reject this submission too.
It is, for example, possible that evidence given in such statements might point to the desirability of additional issues or factual matters being resolved as overlap issues in the Abramovich Action, in a manner binding on the defendants in the Chancery actions. Neither B nor P had any interest in any of the companies which acquired the pre-merger aluminium assets para.
Abramovjch page was last edited on 25 Novemberat It is, however, a central issue in the Main Action. Gloster Jin the Commercial Court division of the High Courtheld that Berezovsky was not a credible witness, there juddgment never been a certain agreement intended to be enforceable, and there were no threats.
The defendants in the Chancery Division actions have identified the “Rusal issues” as being important issues which arise in both the Chancery Division proceedings and in the Abramovich Action. Having protested at the earlier CMC in the Chancery Division that he should not be burdened with two simultaneous trials, at the hearing before us Mr Berezovsky changed his mind and propounded the suggestion that the two sets of actions should be avramovich simultaneously, starting in October ; the Abramovich Action is provisionally fixed for that date in any event.
First, we have to consider whether the Abramovich trial will be unacceptably extended in length if the Chancery Division defendants are to be given the right to participate on the Rusal issues and to introduce additional evidential material over and above that which would be adduced without them.
They represent further possible areas of factual overlap, but they are, taken individually, of less significance than those identified above. Get 2 points on providing a valid reason for the above change. There is a a range of potential solutions each of which has its own significant drawbacks.
D denied any agreement that B would have any interest in Sibneft or its profits; the payments made to B had been ad hoc payments for the exercise of B’s political patronage or protection; there was no agreement that B or P should be entitled to participate in any future business venture undertaken by D and therefore they had no interest in the pre-merger aluminium assets or in RusAl. The case was the last where Lord Sumption acted as a barrister. I do not consider it appropriate at this stage to make the order for enhanced disclosure which the Claimant seeks, and accordingly I refuse the application.
This is where the difficulty arises. We accept that there is likely to be evidence given abramovicch relation to that issue, and that there will be challenges on that issue.
Please subscribe to download the judgment.
Berezovsky -v- Abramovich and Berezovsky -v- Hine
Under communism Berezovsky worked as head of the department of system design at the Institute of Control Sciences, working with AutoVaz, maker of the Russian Lada car, on automatic design systems. The effects are easily removable. We use the word “matters” here to include both things that are strictly in issue as pleaded issues, and other points that will be likely to arise, on the evidence, as important or significant abramovihc of fact and as to which there is a dispute which will probably need to be addressed in both sets of cases.
He relied upon the significance of the parties’ states of mind on key issues, including in respect of the and Agreements and intimidation. That did not, however, always seem to be Mr Rabinowitz’s proposal.
He is a genius. That is an important point.
Next, he pointed to the unavailability of key witnesses e. Rabinowitz, the matter having been raised recently in correspondence between the parties, in Mr.
Boris Berezovsky v Roman Abramovich () — Maitland Chambers
It may be that assuming for these purposes that the Abramovich Action is tried first the judge trying the Abramovich Action will consider it unnecessary to make certain findings relating to these issues, so having two decisions is not inevitable. Boris Berezovskyknown as one of the ” Russian abramoovich ” who became rich under the presidency of Boris Yeltsinclaimed that in he had made a contract with Roman Abramovich.
The Rusal issues as they are currently formulated are set out in the appendix to this judgment. The trial would have to wait many months until that appeal had been heard, and while that might be inevitable in relation to the Abramovich Action, it would also postpone the trial of the remaining issues in the Main Action if that trial was to come on after the Commercial Court action.
Mr Rabinowitz’s skeleton argument for this application sought to play down the significance of that dispute in the Abramovich proceedings.