This websites use cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. For more details about cookies and how to manage them, see our cookie policy.

Cases George Hayman

Tugushev v Orlov [2019]

Judgment Date: 26 Jul 2019

A claimant's failure to make due enquiry in relation to allegations forming a core piece of the defendant's defence, and his consequent failure to fairly represent the merits of that defence on a without notice application for a worldwide freezing order, had amounted to serious non-disclosure and the freezing order was set aside. The freezing order was not re-granted on the return hearing because there was no risk of the defendant dissipating his assets.

View case

Alexander Tugushev v (1) Vitaly Orlov (2) Magnus Roth (3) Andrey Petrik (2019)

Judgment Date: 27 Mar 2019

The claimant, who was pursuing a claim of unlawful means conspiracy against three defendants, had a good arguable case that the first defendant, a Russian businessman, had been resident, and therefore domiciled, in England when the claim form was issued. The English courts therefore had jurisdiction to hear the claim against him.

View case

State Bank of India & 12 Ors v (1) Vijay Mallya (2) Ladywalk Llp (3) Rose Capital Ventures Ltd (4) Orange India Holdings Sarl (2018)

Judgment Date: 08 May 2018

A judgment of the Bangalore Debt Recovery Tribunal could properly be registered under the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933.

View case

PJSC Tatneft v Gennadiy Bogolyubov & ors (2017)

Judgment Date: 08 Nov 2016

The court granted two defendants summary judgment in a claim against them by a Russian oil company on the basis that the claim had no real prospect of success. It also set aside an order permitting service out of the jurisdiction on two other defendants, as there was no serious issue to be tried. The claimant had no standing to bring the proceedings and the claim was misconceived as a matter of Russian law.

View case

As Latvijas Krajbanka v Vladimir Antonov (2016)

Judgment Date: 08 Jul 2016

The court exercised its discretionary powers under the Senior Courts Act 1981 s.35A to award interest on a claimant's damages until the date of judgment. Interest was awarded at a rate of 6% per annum on the judgment debt from the date of judgment as would be applied by a Latvian court.

View case

JSC BTA Bank v Mukhtar Ablyazov (July 2013)

Judgment Date: 05 Jul 2013

The circumstances in which a contemnor should not be heard by the court were not confined to cases in which the contemnor was bringing an application. It could also extend to cases in which the contemnor was a respondent to another party's application. Accordingly, the court refused to hear a contemnor on an application by a judgment creditor to vary a receivership order where he had been guilty of serious contempt aimed at impeding the course of justice.

View case

Loughridge v Financial Times Ltd (2013)

Judgment Date: 12 Feb 2013

A court heard that it was unfair and unjust to order a split trial in a breach of contract claim where the party seeking the order had failed to satisfy the court that it was appropriate to do so. However, an application to adjourn a trial date was granted so that all of the issues could be heard together.

View case

JSC BTA Bank v Mukhtar Ablyazov (2013)

Judgment Date: 18 Jan 2013

A court declared that if Russian enforcement proceedings against a former bank chairman were to conclude that a pledge of shares by him as security in a business transaction had been perfected, then he was in breach of receivership and freezing orders and should use his best endeavours to intervene in the Russian proceedings. That declaration could serve a useful purpose and was not purely academic.

View case

JSC BTA Bank v Mukhtar Ablyazov (6 November 2012)

Judgment Date: 06 Nov 2012

There was no authority for the proposition that a full hearing on the merits was required in circumstances where a litigant had forfeited his right to a full trial by his own conduct of the litigation. The judge had been entitled to make orders whereby the appellant would be debarred from defending the claims against him unless within a stated period he both surrendered to custody and made proper disclosure of all his assets and his dealings with them.

View case

JSC BTA Bank v Mukhtar Ablyazov & Ors (1 November 2012)

Judgment Date: 01 Nov 2012

A fair-minded observer would not conclude that there was a real possibility that a judge, who had made findings adverse to the first defendant when finding that he was in contempt of court, would be biased when deciding the issues at trial. In any event, the first defendant had waived his right to apply for the judge's recusal by not making such an application at the pre-trial review, which amounted to a representation that he had no objection to the judge trying the case.

View case

JSC BTA Bank v Mukhtar Ablyazov (September 2012)

Judgment Date: 21 Sep 2012

A defendant who had breached the terms of a freezing injunction by causing his companies to make pledges to Russian banks was ordered to use his best endeavours to intervene in any enforcement proceedings on the pledges to ensure that the Russian court was informed that the pledges had been made in breach of the injunction.

View case

JSC BTA Bank v Mukhtar Ablyazov & 6 Ors (29 February 2012)

Judgment Date: 29 Feb 2012

Where the court had issued a warrant for the committal of a contemnor and he had gone into hiding, it was just and convenient to issue a mandatory injunction, pursuant to the Senior Courts Act 1981 s.37(1), ordering him to surrender himself to the tipstaff so that the latter could execute the warrant of committal.

View case

JSC BTA Bank v Mukhtar Ablyazov (16 February 2012)

Judgment Date: 16 Feb 2012

The applicant bank had satisfied the court to the criminal standard of proof that the respondent was guilty of contempts of court by failing to disclose his assets in breach of a worldwide freezing order.

View case

Mukhtar Ablyazov v JSC BTA Bank (28 November 2011)

Judgment Date: 28 Nov 2011

A judge had been entitled to allow a claimant to proceed against a defendant in respect of a limited number of allegations of contempt of court arising out of compliance with a freezing order and other ancillary orders, without requiring it to abandon other allegations of contempt which it had raised, and to have approved the claimant's selection of the allegations to form the subject of the hearing notwithstanding a degree of overlap between them and forthcoming trials. The importance of ensuring the efficacy of the freezing order provided the essential rationale for that case management decision.

View case

JSC BTA Bank v Mukhtar Ablyazov & Ors (7 October 2011)

Judgment Date: 07 Oct 2011

It was not appropriate to adjourn the trial of a bank's application for an order committing the defendant for contempt of court. If the time for service of the defence was extended the defendant would have adequate time to prepare.

View case

JSC BTA Bank v Mukhtar Ablyazov (June 2011)

Judgment Date: 21 Jun 2011

The court ordered that a claimant's application to commit a defendant to prison for contempt of court should be heard before the trial of the substantive claim, but ordered the claimant to select three contempt allegations to be heard out of the 23 allegations cited in its application.

View case

Kathleen Bleasdale & John Cariss v Deborah Forster (2011)

Judgment Date: 16 Mar 2011

In the context of fraudulent misrepresentation it was possible for a claimant to plead an alternative case based on the defendant's version of events while continuing to deny that version. The requirement for a statement of truth did not prevent such a scenario as long as there was a proper evidential foundation for the alternative allegation.

View case

Leslie Dweck v Mark Forstater & Ors (2010)

Judgment Date: 26 Jul 2010

A master had been wrong on the evidence to make non-party costs orders against the family of a litigant whom they had assisted by loans to pay his legal costs. The adverse findings and inferences he made were not open to him on the evidence, and he should have allowed cross-examination before rejecting the written evidence as to the motives behind the payments.

View case

Secretary of State for Business Enterprise & Regulatory Reform v Sullman & Poole (2008)

Judgment Date: 19 Dec 2008

A company director of a claims management service involved in selling various insurance products to claimants was disqualified under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 s.8 following his misconduct and misrepresentation in selling the products and in the flotation of the company on the stock market.

View case

National Sporting Club Ltd v PCA Management Ltd (2006)

Judgment Date: 21 Dec 2006

On the evidence the claimant failed to prove that an oral representation alleged to have been made by the defendant had been incorporated into a contract between them.

View case

Members
George Hayman QC

Practice areas
Commercial Disputes

1 2

Results 1 - 20 of 24