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):||5 February 2012|
|PDF File Size:||14.93 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||12.28 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
They are not in issue in the Abramovich Action but it berezosvky said that they will arise as part of the facts which will be debated in order to prove or disprove the earlier agreement at the Dorchester Hotel.
Mr Berezovsky denied receiving the payment, saying: Log In India UK.
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.
There was no formal application for such an order by Mr. The Defendants’ proposals 6.
Berezovsky v Abramovich
The making of such an order commonly referred to as a “Peruvian Guano” order, and which I shall refer to as an “enhanced order” is resisted by Mr Brindle QC on behalf of Mr. There is a a range of potential solutions each of which has its own significant drawbacks.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Views Read Edit View history.
Berezovsky -v- Abramovich and Berezovsky -v- Hine
There are some clear areas of overlap, and some less clear areas. We are alive to that possibility, but we consider that at the moment what we set out below will be a just, economic and fair way of dealing with the possibilities of duplicating trials and conflicting decisions. They would not have a free hand to participate in all the issues in that trial. This is a paid feature. That gives them their right to participate.
The burden will be squarely on the person seeking the order to show it is justified by the particular circumstances, not disproportionate, and does not extend over too many classes of documents. He pointed out that the terms of the Claimant’s proposed order reflected the terms of an enhanced disclosure order, as set out at paragraphs 3.
We agree with Mr Rabinowitz that the choice of alternatives is a choice of the best of a number of unattractive alternatives, but we reach our conclusion for a number of reasons which we express shortly as follows:.
It has been acknowledged on all sides that there should be at least 2 phases of the Chancery Division trials, with the second one dealing with such things as quantum and any complex tracing procedures which success for Mr Berezovsky in phase 1 would require.
The circumstances of this unusual hearing are as follows. It will, in our view, be usefully dispositive of the issues involved. That may be an uncomfortable conclusion, but it is true on the facts of these cases.
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, with the judgmment 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. Mr Rabinowitz drew other points to our attention as being potential areas of factual overlap, including one relating to ownership of a Russian bank.
This is not a pleaded issue in the Abramovich proceedings, but it was said, and we accept, that it will be part of the background facts advanced by Mr Berezovsky as part of his evidential case. The resulting proceedings would be too wide in range to be fair to the parties, or indeed probably to be sensibly triable, even though in purist terms it would be the only way of avoiding the possibility of conflicting decisions on common issues or questions of fact.
Berezlvsky, all overlapping issues of which he said there were a number should be tried in the Abramovich Action; and in the further alternative the consideration of the point should be put off until next year when disclosure and exchange of witness statements in each action had occurred and a more informed choice could be made. Accordingly, I decline to make any such order at the present time without ruling out the possibility that it may be appropriate for such an order to be made at abbramovich later stage.
Berezovsky v Abramovich
The start of the Chancery Division proceedings would have to occur after an interval which allows for the trial of the Abramovich Berezoveky, judgment, and digestion of the effects of that judgment say, not before Easter Showing top 3 of 3 judgment s. Mr Rabinowitz held out the prospect of delaying the Chancery Division actions pending such an appeal, which would again introduce delays that Mr Berezovsky would find unacceptable.
One of those cases “the Abramovich Abramoovich is proceeding in the Commercial Court. Since complete joinder of the cases is inappropriate, the question becomes whether 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 abramofich, in one but not both sets of proceedings.
D was a truthful and, on the whole, reliable witness see paras of judgment.
In order to determine this it is necessary to consider what the overlapping matters are. Mr Rabinowitz’s first response to this was to say there should therefore be no surgery.
Key Phrases are not available yet. Click to upgrade Your Package to have this feature. We heard submissions from the various parties and this judgment is our joint judgment, delivered by each of us sitting in our respective jurisdictions. How Boris Berezovsky lost a fortune For Boris Berezovsky, his court battle with Roman Abramovich sometimes seemed as much an attempt to embarrass Vladmir Putin, the Russian president, as to hold his former business partner to account.
Berezovsky v Abramovich – Wikipedia
Neither B nor P had any interest in any of judhment companies which acquired the pre-merger aluminium assets para. My reasons, shortly stated, are as follows: Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3. 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.
Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this avramovich. If there were beezovsky be an appeal, it is inevitable that the October trial date for the Abramovich Action would be lost. Mr Rabinowitz’s other points still have to be considered. There might be a vast quantity of such documents, which, theoretically might fall within the “train of enquiry” catchment.
Various permutations have to be considered.