JUDGMENT

Anthony Colman J

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 upon his case, as originally advanced, by addition or clarification in the light of the defendants criticisms. In the present case the amendment application is partly opposed on the grounds that it seeks to introduce new causes of action which are time-barred and/or that some of the proposed amendments are intrinsically lacking in any real prospect of success and/or that the attempt to introduce them at such a late stage is an abuse of process.

[3] Where, as in this case, a claimant applies to amend his case in the face of a strike-out or summary judgment application the usual approach is for the court to decide whether to give permission for those amendments and then decide the defendants applications with reference to the statement of case amended to the extent, if any, permitted by the court, but subject always to such special orders as to costs as may be appropriate in view of the late introduction of those amendments which have been permitted.

[4] Accordingly, since the issues as to strike out and Summary judgment have to be determined on the basis of the Statement of Case and Reply amended to such extent, if any, as the amendment application may succeed, it is necessary first to decide that amendment application and then to determine the strike-out and summary judgment applications. Since a major ground upon which RA challenges BBs amendment application is the lack of any realistic prospect of success of the allegations in their amended form - a ground also mainly relied upon in respect of the original pleadings before introduction of the amendments, it will first be necessary to explain in some detail the factual basis which has given rise to the disputes between the parties.

The Factual Background As Relied Upon By BB

[5] According to BB, until 30 October 2000, he was a businessman in Russia with extensive commercial interests. These included a company - ZAO LogoVaZ - carrying on the business of servicing and selling motor vehicles, a 50 per cent interest in ZAO ORT-KB which in turn owned 38 per cent of OAO-ORT -a Russian Public Television company, another channel - TV6 - three Russian newspapers and a 21.5 per cent interest in OAO Siberskaya Neftyanaya Kompaniya, a Russian oil company, to which I refer as "Sibneft."

[6] In addition to his business activities, BB had been heavily involved in Russian politics. He had been a strong supporter of and on good terms with President Yeltsin and had been Deputy Secretary of the Russian Security Council (October 1996 to November 1997), Executive Secretary of the Commonwealth of Independent States, the CIS, which was the successor umbrella organisation to the Soviet Union (April 1998 to April 1999) and an elected member of the Duma from 1999 until July 2000.

[7] The television Company, ORT, had been part-privatised by Presidential Decree in December 1994, as a result of which 49 per cent of that company was sold to the private sector, including a substantial proportion to BB with the result that Mr Arkadi Patarkatsishvili (to whom I shall ref