Back
2010 MarsdenLR 592
HIGH COURT ENGLAND AND WALES
BORIS ABRAMOVICH BEREZOVSKY – Appellant
Versus
ROMAN ARKADIEVICH ABRAMOVICH – Respondent
[Case No: 2007 Folio 942]
The court permitted amendments to the claim, noting they did not introduce new causes of action, and concluded the intimidation claim remained viable based on perceived threats of expropriation.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Rules - CPR 3.4(2)(a) and 3.4(2)(b) - CPR 24.2 - Summary judgment - Defendant applied to strike out Claimant's claim as lacking reasonable grounds - Claimant's application for permission to amend Particulars of Claim opposed on grounds of introducing time-barred causes of action - Court permitted amendments, identifying that they did not introduce new causes of action and considering the intimidation claim by reference to threats of expropriation - Court concluded that the intimidation claim remained viable and not hopeless based on the evidence - Applications to strike out dismissed. (Paras 1-202)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of claims and applications. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. process of handling amendment applications. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. bb's factual background before the court. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. sibneft agreements and their implications. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 5. development of amendments related to sibneft. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 6. disagreement on shares and previous agreements. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 7. arguments on the nature of the transactions. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52) |
| 8. discussion on breach of contract and fiduciary duty. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59) |
| 9. claims related to rusal and associated agreements. (Para 60 , 61 , 62 , 63) |
| 10. defendant's claims and propositions. (Para 64 , 65 , 66) |
| 11. defendant’s observations on the nature of bb's claims. (Para 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74) |
| 12. new decision on litigation and amendments. (Para 75 , 76 , 77) |
| 13. legal principles on intimidation. (Para 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84) |
| 14. clarifying intimidation and duress. (Para 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91) |
| 15. overview of the actions and evidence presented. (Para 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97) |
| 16. analysis of previous cases. (Para 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102) |
| 17. consequences of the presented evidence. (Para 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107) |
| 18. exploring credibility and assumptions. (Para 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112) |
| 19. reasoning to allow or deny cases. (Para 113 , 114 , 115 , 116) |
| 20. examining the relationship between parties. (Para 117 , 118 , 119 , 120) |
| 21. evaluation of the whether amendments are plausible. (Para 121 , 122 , 123 , 124) |
| 22. assessing the complexities of the claims. (Para 125 , 126 , 127 , 128) |
| 23. finals decisions regarding claims. (Para 129 , 130 , 131 , 132) |
| 24. legal interpretation on the claims. (Para 133 , 134 , 135 , 136) |
| 25. effects of evidence and witness accounts. (Para 137 , 138 , 139 , 140) |
| 26. conclusion on potential claims. (Para 141 , 142 , 143 , 144) |
| 27. end of arguments and resolutions. (Para 145 , 146 , 147 , 148) |
| 28. exploration of new claims or amendments. (Para 149 , 150 , 151 , 152) |
| 29. final evaluation and conclusion on claims. (Para 153 , 154 , 155 , 156) |
| 30. final ruling on the claims. (Para 157 , 158 , 159 , 160) |
| 31. clarification on the act of state point. (Para 161 , 162 , 163 , 164) |
| 32. conclusion on substantial issues. (Para 165 , 166 , 167 , 168) |
| 33. final rulings and outcomes. (Para 169 , 170 , 171 , 172) |
| 34. management of claims. (Para 173 , 174 , 175 , 176) |
| 35. final conclusions and claims. (Para 177 , 178 , 179 , 180) |
| 36. summary of legal ruling and implications. (Para 181 , 182 , 183 , 184) |
| 37. final contemplation of legal matters. (Para 185 , 186 , 187 , 188) |
| 38. overview of implications for bb's claims. (Para 189 , 190 , 191 , 192) |
| 39. conclusion on state efforts. (Para 193 , 194 , 195 , 196) |
| 40. final judgment on claims. (Para 197 , 198 , 199 , 200) |
| 41. resolution on applications and matters. (Para 201 , 202) |
Introduction
[1] There are before the court two applications. The Defendant, Mr Roman Abramovich, to whom I shall refer throughout as "RA", applies (1) to strike out the claim against him by Mr Boris Berezovsky, to whom I shall refer as "BB", under CPR 3.4(2)(a) - "the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing - the claim" - and under CPR 3.4(2)(b) - "the statement of case is an abuse of the courts process" - or (2) for summary judgment against BB on the whole of his claim under CPR 24.2 on the grounds that (a) BB has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim and (b) there is no other compelling reason why the case should be disposed of at a trial.
[2] The Claimant, BB, applies for permission to amend his Particulars of Claim and Reply in various distinct respects. He does so - as so frequently occurs in the face of a defendants strike out or summary judgment application - in order to attempt to improve
