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):||3 September 2004|
|PDF File Size:||2.1 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||6.1 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
They were supported in their submissions by the Interim Administrators and by the Salford Defendants. These points cannot be ignored. Berezovsky v Abramovich Visual Similar Judgments.
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. The case is notable, as it involved two of the Russian oligarchsand was a direct consequence of the privatization in Russia that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union. We heard submissions from the various parties and this judgment is our joint judgment, delivered by each of us sitting in our respective jurisdictions.
I do not consider it appropriate at this stage to make the order for enhanced disclosure which the Claimant seeks, and accordingly I refuse the application. The burden will abramovicb 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.
D was a truthful and, on the whole, reliable witness see paras of judgment. They are said to be issues which are central to one of the two main planks of Mr Berezovsky’s claim in that action and they will have to be determined therefore.
They will have the right to put in evidence on those issues and must give disclosure on them, and will have the further right to participate in the Abramovich trial in relation to those issues. Click to upgrade Your Package to have this feature.
Log In India UK.
Document: Berezovsky v Abramovich judgment in full – Telegraph
Mr Rabinowitz sought to demonstrate that there abramovifh serious risks as to the timing of all this which would mean that the ultimate trials of Mr Berezovsky’s claims might be delayed to an unacceptable extent. It is, for example, possible that evidence given in such statements might point to the desirability of additional issues or factual matters being resolved as overlap issues in the Abramovich Action, in a manner binding on the defendants in the Chancery actions. So berezovsmy seems to us that the Rusal issues are sufficiently discrete, sufficiently important and sufficiently common to make it proper to try them once, in abramovichh Abramovich Action, with 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.
His oral submissions tended to talk it back up again. A year later, Berezovsky allegedly committed suicide by hanging himself. It was audited by Arthur Anderson, which shut down following its role in the Enron scandal in However, at the hearing before us, his case became more accommodating and encompassed more alternatives. That would involve the solicitors on both sides having to revisit all the documents for the purpose of the wider consideration as to whether the documents gave rise to a train of enquiry.
Property Related Professional Negligence. That point would be likely to arise in the Abramovich Action, and inevitably arose in the Main and Metalloinvest Actions. Practice areas Commercial Disputes. The proposals of the defendants do not necessarily produce a result at present which can be presented as a clean surgical transplant with no undesirable side-effects.
Key Phrases are not available yet. They represent further possible areas of factual overlap, but they judgmentt, taken individually, of less significance than those identified above. Next, he pointed to the unavailability of key witnesses e. There is a a range of potential solutions each of which has its own significant drawbacks.
Rabinowitz submitted that this was clearly a case where it was appropriate to order enhanced disclosure.
There is a serious risk of the judgmnet 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.
Get 1 point on providing a valid sentiment to this Citation.
Berezovsky v Abramovich
Mr Berezovsky’s position on that proposal 8. The circumstances of this unusual hearing are as follows. Personally I didn’t calculate… I can’t confirm, I can’t refuse. 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.
A short analysis of the actions and certain common areas of fact can be seen from the judgment of Mann J in the three Chancery actions, dated 14th May  Abramovivh with which this judgment should be read. The task is an onerous one not only because of the difficulty which may exist in identifying or defining the categories of document berezosvky may come within the ambit of such an order, and thus will have to be reviewed, but also because the decision-maker has to apply the relevant test to abramvich document “Is it reasonable to suppose that this particular documents might lead to or might advance a train of enquiry?
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. We confess that we do not think that this proposal on behalf of Mr Berezovsky was fully thought jdgment. Rabinowitz’s argument that this will give rise to a duplication of effort on the ground that the same documents will have to be revisited.
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. Mr Berezvosky said he later agreed to hand his holding over to Abramovich for safekeeping in case of a communist victory in the elections. A ‘substantial case’ would be defined g this new rule as: Various permutations have to be considered.
Thus if the Rusal issues are to be tried once, and once only, in the Abramovich Action, then how far do those issues really take one? We have no hesitation in rejecting Mr Rabinowitz’s beresovsky proposal.
The person seeking the order should remember that the rules were intended to cut down the amount of documents disclosed.