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):||14 May 2013|
|PDF File Size:||12.85 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||12.59 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
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 breezovsky. Those last three cases are not formally consolidated, but they all raise related issues and are being case-managed together by an assigned judge, Mann J. D denied berezovsoy agreement that B would have any interest in Sibneft or its profits; the payments made to B had been ad hoc payments for the exercise of B’s political patronage or protection; there was no agreement that B or P should be entitled to participate in any future business venture undertaken by D and therefore they had no interest in the pre-merger aluminium assets or in RusAl.
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 will probably need to be addressed in both sets of cases.
It was audited by Arthur Anderson, which shut down following its role in the Enron scandal in On the basis of the information presently before me, I have no way whatsoever of making an informed decision as to such matters.
Document: Berezovsky v Abramovich judgment in full
We therefore conclude that the appropriate course is as follows: Proper trial management of that action will prevent the defendants from straying beyond the bounds of what is necessary in order to allow that participation. That may be so to a certain extent, but I suspect the more likely consequence, if any order were to be made at a future date, is that further categories of documents would have to be searched before further disclosure could be made.
The solution is not, however, straightforward. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. He was accused of pretending to Mr Curtis that he owned part of Aeroflot, the Russian national airline, in order to explain where some of the money was coming from. The essence of the case was whether there was any credible evidence that an agreement had in fact been made.
I do not consider it appropriate at this stage to make the order for enhanced disclosure which the Claimant jugment, and accordingly I refuse the application.
Berezovsky v Abramovich trial: How Boris Berezovsky lost a fortune – Telegraph
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. Abramovich denied any of this was true. Personal tools Log in Cookies Disclaimer. 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. D was a truthful and, on the whole, reliable witness see paras of judgment.
Those difficulties should not be compounded by the imposition of a requirement for enhanced disclosure. We confess that we do not think that this proposal on behalf of Mr Berezovsky was fully thought through. The scope of that risk is uncertain.
Berezovsky v Abramovich – Wikipedia
zbramovich Abramovich beats ‘deluded’ Berezovsky. First, we have to consider whether the Abramovich trial will be unacceptably extended in length if the Chancery Division defendants are to be given the right to participate on the Rusal issues and to introduce additional evidential material over and above that which would be adduced without them.
That did not, however, always seem to be Mr Rabinowitz’s proposal. We have no hesitation in rejecting Mr Rabinowitz’s alternative proposal. Brindle, on behalf of the Defendant, submitted in summary that: Showing top 3 of 3 judgment s.
Berezovsky v Abramovich trial: How Boris Berezovsky lost a fortune
It is all so speculative abramovixh we consider we should disregard the possibility and revisit the question if future events require it. The Rusal issues as they are currently formulated are set out in the appendix to this judgment.
We draw some comfort on this from the fact that Mr Berezovsky’s submissions on the importance of one of those areas the joint venture varied from time to time. The consequence of the absence of any evidence was that the court had no information before it from either side as to: It has been acknowledged on abramkvich sides that there should be at least 2 phases of the Chancery Division trials, with the second one dealing with juegment things as quantum and any complex tracing procedures which success for Mr Berezovsky in phase 1 would require.
Click to upgrade Your Package to have berezovky feature. 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 way of the KrAZ Asset sale prior to the alleged meeting at the Dorchester Hotel in March other than as abramovifh result of the joint venture agreement alleged by the Claimant in the Main Chancery Action and if so, what was the nature and extent of such interest and how did it arise?
Property Related Professional Negligence. The effects are easily removable. Gloster Jin the Commercial Begezovsky 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. Any delay is undesirable, but that is not sufficient to justify any acceleration of the Chancery Division actions towards a simultaneous trial including the Rusal issues with the Abramovich Actions.
Real Estate Dispute Resolution. 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. Log In India UK.