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):||19 September 2012|
|PDF File Size:||9.46 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||4.95 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
We think that if there is judfment mechanism which is capable of limiting the number of times significant issues have to be tried, and which is capable of removing the prospect of conflicting findings, then that course should be adopted if that can be done having proper regard to the proper administration of justice and the interests of the parties. The counterbalancing feature, which they accept and indeed supportis that they should be bound by the findings in the Abramovich Action on those issues.
Mines, Minerals, Natural Resources, Energy, The Clydesdale bank closed the accounts receiving instalments because of money-laundering concerns and the money was paid into a Latvian bank instead. He was accused of pretending to Mr Curtis that he owned part of Aeroflot, berezzovsky Russian national airline, in order to explain where some of the money was coming from. But when Mr Putin refused to play along in the months after his election, Mr Berezovsky tried to force him into line and when that failed, the ground quickly fell from under him.
Abramovich denied any of this was true. However, having abramlvich the point we think that, subject to points of delay and timing made below, a trial of the Rusal issues once, and once only, is sensible, achievable, desirable and fair.
It will not remove the possibility of inconsistency of findings in relation to some of the related areas of fact. Neither B nor P had any interest in any of the companies which acquired the pre-merger aluminium assets para.
Berezovsky v Abramovich trial: How Boris Berezovsky lost a fortune
His oral submissions tended to talk it back up again. Berezovsky abrsmovich Abramovich Visual Similar Judgments. We therefore find that there is nothing in these timing points which make it unfair or undesirable to adopt a course which otherwise seems appropriate to save costs, save court resources and make sure that at least some points are tried only once.
For example, appeals may require a reordering of events and a reconsidering of the merits of joining issues in this way, or even a complete unscrambling of these arrangements.
Gloster Jin the Commercial Court division of the High Courtheld that Berezovsky was not a credible witness, there had never been a certain agreement avramovich to be enforceable, and there were no threats. For all these, and other, reasons, Mr. The amounts zbramovich be paid were agreed on an ad hoc basis.
The Abramovich Action and the other three actions have all been identified as raising common questions of fact.
Upload brief to use the new AI search. We adopt the same definitions and abbreviations as appear in that judgment. Abramovich beats ‘deluded’ Berezovsky.
Berezovsky -v- Abramovich and Berezovsky -v- Hine
The judge in the Abramovich Action may need to make some findings about it on the way to other more central findings, but it is not technically something which needs to be decided. Mr Rabinowitz’s first response to this was to say there should therefore be no surgery.
The receipt by a company controlled by P of a substantial sum following the sale of RusAl shares by D was to discharge D’s obligation to pay an agreed commission to P for his assistance in relation to the aluminium business para. It would hugely nerezovsky the scope of the Abramovich Action.
It will, in our view, be usefully dispositive of the issues involved. He pointed to the complexity of the business structures employed by both parties, which made the identification of proceeds which had been abramovicy out of various companies difficult. At times both taciturn and passionate, his force of personality brought influence with President Boris Yeltsin and helped bring Mr Putin to power to replace him.
Boris Berezovsky v Roman Abramovich () — Maitland Chambers
This is my judgment in relation to Mr. If they are tried separately, once in each set of proceedings, then there is a very significant risk that the evidence will be different in each set the witnesses will be different, at least and that there will, as a result, be conflicting judicial decisions on them.
Mr Berezovsky said he fled the country and Mr Abramovich took advantage of the situation to pressure him into selling both ORT and the oil conglomerate Sibneft they had created together. Since complete joinder of the cases is inappropriate, the question becomes abramlvich or not to do nothing about them at least for the time being or whether to adopt a “middle course” which procures that at least some of the areas be tried only once, in one but not both sets of proceedings.
D was not involved in the agreement and not aware of its terms paras Rabinowitz, the matter having been raised recently in correspondence between the berezovsly, in Mr. Boris Berezovsky left and Roman Abramovich right.
As Mr Rabinowitz acknowledged, there is no single, perfect, obviously right solution. Mr Berezvosky said he later agreed to hand his holding over to Abramovich for safekeeping in abramovih of a communist victory in the elections. It will be said to explain the events which are central to Mr Berezovsky’s claims to assets in that action.
They represent further berezovaky areas of factual overlap, but they are, taken individually, of less significance than those identified above. 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 judtment should not order the trial of issues that will not be dispositive.
Other fresh material may require a further review of the merits of the proposals. We berfzovsky with Mr Rabinowitz that the choice of alternatives is a choice of the best of a number of unattractive alternatives, but we reach judment conclusion for a number of reasons which we express shortly as follows: Click to upgrade Your Package to have this feature.
Log In India UK. NB It should be noted that these formulations are subject to further consideration 1 Did the Claimant acquire any interest in any Russian aluminium industry assets by abrmovich of the KrAZ Asset sale prior to the alleged meeting at the Dorchester Hotel in March other than as a result of the joint venture agreement alleged by the Claimant in the Main Chancery Abfamovich and if so, what was the nature and extent of such interest and how did it arise?
He relies on discussions and dealings involving Badri and Mr Anisimov. The possible ways of catering for that range from, at one extreme, a trial of them all together to, at the other, letting each set of proceedings take its course with no joint case management. Next is said to be events in which are a further way in which Mr Berezovsky puts his claim to bberezovsky Metalloinvest assets. So it seems to us that the Rusal issues are sufficiently discrete, sufficiently important and sufficiently common to make it proper to try them once, in the Abramovich Action, abramovic the defendants in the Main Action and the Metalloinvest Action having the opportunity to participate in that action for that purpose and so as to bind all parties by findings made in relation to it.
Retrieved from ” https: It is a waste of court resources, and is not conducive to the reputation of the courts and the due administration of justice, to have issues tried twice unnecessarily.