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):||23 September 2007|
|PDF File Size:||8.44 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||18.20 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
We frankly regard this as speculative. This is where the difficulty arises.
We do not set them out again; that judgment should be read into this one for those purposes. That was essentially jidgment for two reasons.
We are not suggesting that it is inevitable that changes will occur; we are merely providing the opportunity to whether anything has happened to alter the merits of our current decision. That is not necessarily the final and best definition of them, but it suffices for present purposes.
Document: Berezovsky v Abramovich judgment in full – Telegraph
Jones v Padavatton . All this will be enshrined in an appropriate order. That is plainly wrong in principle. Again, the Abramovich Action judge may or may not feel it necessary to make findings about it. Mines, Minerals, Natural Resources, Energy, That was the least bad of a number of unsatisfactory alternatives.
Berezovsky v Abramovich trial: How Boris Berezovsky lost a fortune
There is a serious risk of the issues being determined differently in the two different sets of proceedings if each proceed on their own way, not least because there are likely to be live witnesses in the Abramovich proceedings and particularly in relation to an important meeting at the Dorchester Hotel in who would not be available, or at least not willingly so, in the Chancery Division proceedings. We reject this submission too. Mr Rabinowitz went on to say that determining the Rusal issues in the Abramovich Action would not be dispositive of the real point, which was whether Mr Berezovsky had an interest in the Rusal proceeds, and the court should not order the trial arbamovich issues that will not be dispositive.
It is something that becomes a necessary concomitant of the complex litigation which Mr Berezovsky has started. He submitted that the Practice Direction envisaged that an application for enhanced, train of enquiry disclosure, would be made abramoviich way of an application for specific disclosure.
The court is thus faced with these areas of overlap. Under communism Berezovsky worked as head of the department of system design at the Institute of Control Judgmeent, working ujdgment AutoVaz, maker of the Russian Lada car, on automatic design systems. In particular, whilst the amounts claimed are very large, that in and of itself cannot point to the conclusion that the costs of the disclosure exercise should be wholly and inappropriately expanded; the allegations made although significant to the parties are no more serious or complex than in many cases in this Court; and the passage of time and the death of two individuals who would otherwise have been witnesses also did not justify the wholesale expansion of the disclosure process.
But the court was told Sibneft, which was listed on the New York and Moscow stock exchanges, was not declaring any profit.
He submitted that the passage of time since the relevant events, make it more difficult to rely upon the evidence of the witnesses who remain available. Judgmnt log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature. The other three cases are proceeding in the Chancery Division.
The claimant B sued the defendant D claiming that he had an interest in two substantial Russian companies, Sibneft, an oil company, and RusAl, a company in the aluminium industry.
For the present the arrangements just referred to are, in our view, the right ones to make. The solution is not, however, straightforward. Practice areas Commercial Disputes.
Boris Berezovsky v Roman Abramovich () — Maitland Chambers
There was no agreement that B or P would have a share of the RusAl business created by the merger of the pre-merger aluminium assets para. Retrieved from ” https: The principal proponents of this idea are the Family Defendants and the main defendants in the Metalloinvest Action Mr Anisimov and his associated companies.
We have no hesitation in rejecting Mr Rabinowitz’s alternative proposal. They represent further possible areas of factual overlap, but they are, taken individually, of less significance than those identified above.
On any basis, this was a substantial case, as defined in Lord Justice Jackson’s Review. He admitted that the deal that sealed his 50 per cent stake in Sibneft with his berezovsmy Badri Patarkatsishvili was done on a handshake, adding: Other issues are not sufficiently common, not sufficiently severable, not practicably triable within the Abramovich Action, or a combination of those factors.
It goes with this proposal that the Commercial Court action should be tried first, retaining its present proposed trial date of October With a doctorate in applied mathematics and over scientific papers to his name, Boris Berezovsky clearly considered himself the intellectual superior to Roman Abramovich, a high school drop out.
No Case or Topic can be added. Accessibility links Skip to article Skip to navigation. The court has no material before it adequately to inform it what beerezovsky would have to be made, of what categories or classes of document, to enable documents to be disclosed which might lead to a train of enquiry. We think that the undesirability of this is most strikingly demonstrated in the present case by considering Mr Rabinowitz’s initial proposals that both sets of proceedings should judgmejt heard separately, but starting at the same time in October Mr Berezovsky’s position on the centrality of this point has shifted from time to time.
The consequence judgmeng the absence of any evidence was that the court had no information before it from bereozvsky side as to: 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.
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 matters of fact and as to which there is a dispute which judgmeent probably need to be addressed in both sets of cases. Gloster Jin the Commercial Court division of the High Courtheld that Berezovsky was not a credible witness, there had never been a certain agreement intended to be enforceable, and there were no threats.
Parker v Clark berezovvsky 1 WLR If that were successful, and there were beerezovsky further appeal, then obviously any joinder order would have to be unscrambled and the Chancery Division proceedings would be the only extant proceedings. It would hugely increase the scope of the Abramovich Action.
He also took timing points. For all these, and other, reasons, Mr. We acknowledge that these are serious questions. Mr Rabinowitz’s skeleton argument for this application sought to play down the significance of that dispute in the Abramovich proceedings.