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 Benjamin John

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

Ali Mahmoud Hassan Mohamed v Abdulmagid Breish (2019)

Judgment Date: 10 Jul 2019

Under the "one voice" doctrine, whereby if the Foreign and Commonwealth Office chose to recognise somebody as the executive authority of a foreign state then the court could not second-guess the recognition, the lawfulness or validity under foreign law of the acts of the recognised foreign government could not be challenged by submitting that that government was not lawfully constituted under the foreign law.

View case

Ali Mahmoud Hassan Mohamed v (1) Abdulmagid Breish (2) Hussein Mohamed Hussein Abdlmora (3) Mark James Shaw & Shane Michael Crooks (4) Libyan Investment Authority (2019)

Judgment Date: 01 Apr 2019

The court declined to make a supplementary declaration clarifying its existing declarations in a claim regarding the chairmanship of the Libyan Investment Authority.

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

Ali Mahmoud Hassan Mohamed v (1) Abdulmagid Breish (2) Hussein Mohamed Hussein Abdlmora (3) Mark James Shaw & Shane Michael Crooks (4) Libyan Investment Authority (2019)

Judgment Date: 14 Feb 2019

The court declared in the context of a dispute over the chairmanship of the Libyan Investment Authority that the question of which body represented the executive authority and government of Libya fell to be determined, if it arose before the English court, under English law, and that the executive authority and government of Libya had been represented since April 2017 by the Government of National Accord and the Presidency Council.

View case

R (On The Application Of Miller & Anor) v Secretary Of State For Exiting The European Union (2017)

Judgment Date: 24 Jan 2017

The Government did not have power under the Crown's prerogative to give notice pursuant to TEU art.50(2) for the UK to withdraw from the EU. An Act of Parliament was required.

View case

R (On The Application Of (1) Gina Miller (2) Deir Tozetti Dos Santos) (Claimants) v Secretary Of State For Exiting The European Union (Defendant) & (1) Grahame Pigney & Ors (2) AB, KK, PR & Children (

Judgment Date: 24 Jan 2017

The Government did not have power under the Crown's prerogative to give notice pursuant to TEU art.50(2) for the UK to withdraw from the EU. An Act of Parliament was required.

View case

R (On The Application Of (1) Gina Miller (2) Deir Tozetti Dos Santos) (Claimants) v Secretary Of State For Exiting The European Union (Defendant) & (1) Grahame Pigney & Ors (2) AB, KK, PR & Children (

Judgment Date: 03 Nov 2016

The Government did not have power under the Crown's prerogative to give notice pursuant to TEU art.50 for the UK to withdraw from the EU.

View case

Sibir Energy Ltd & Ors v Slocom Trading Ltd (& Ors) (2014)

Judgment Date: 17 Jun 2014

There had been no errors of law or unsustainable findings in a judge's ruling in favour of the claimants in their claim for breach of contract.

View case

Members
Benjamin John

Practice areas
Commercial Disputes

Slocom Trading Ltd v Tatik Inc & Ors (2012)

Judgment Date: 04 Dec 2012

The court was required to determine the validity and effectiveness of a number of contracts between companies through which two businessmen had managed their financial affairs.

View case

NML Capital Ltd v Argentina (2011)

Judgment Date: 06 Jul 2011

Under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 s.31, a state did not enjoy immunity in respect of proceedings to enforce a foreign judgment against it where the normal conditions for recognition of judgments were fulfilled and the state would not have been immune had the foreign proceedings been brought in the United Kingdom.

View case

Yukos Capital SARL v OJSC Rosneft Oil (2011)

Judgment Date: 14 Jun 2011

A decision of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal gave rise to an issue estoppel preventing the defendant from denying that decisions of the Russian courts annulling arbitration awards were the result of a partial and dependent judicial process.

View case

Wirecard Bank AG v Allen Thomas Scott (2010)

Judgment Date: 10 Mar 2010

The director, company secretary and an employee of a company which sold tickets for sporting events were liable for the torts of conspiracy to defraud by unlawful means and deceit where the company failed to deliver a single ticket it had sold for the 2008 Olympics. No one at the company had intended to acquire any tickets and the individuals in question had falsely represented that the tickets would be supplied by the event's main sponsors.

View case

Republic of Argentina v NML Capital Ltd (2010)

Judgment Date: 04 Feb 2010

The Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 s.31 remained subject to the provisions of the State Immunity Act 1978 in respect of the circumstances in which the United Kingdom courts could exercise jurisdiction over states.

View case

NML Capital Ltd v The Republic of Argentina (2009)

Judgment Date: 29 Jan 2009

Where the question of sovereign immunity was addressed on an application for an order granting permission to serve out of the jurisdiction on a foreign state, but on the basis of a mistaken legal analysis, the court had a discretion to set aside the order, even where the mistake was an innocent one, but was not bound to do so where on a correct legal analysis the state was not in fact immune from suit. Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 s.31 dealt comprehensively with the recognition and enforcement of the judgments of foreign courts against states, as to both jurisdictional immunity and enforcement.

View case

Members
Benjamin John

Practice areas
Commercial Disputes

Donegal International Ltd v Zambia & Anor (2007)

Judgment Date: 15 Feb 2007

In the circumstances a state was not entitled to state immunity in respect of a claim to enforce a settlement agreement relating to sovereign debt but the state had a real prospect of defending the claim on the basis that certain provisions of the agreement were penal.

View case

Members
Benjamin John

Practice areas
Commercial Disputes

Walker International Holdings Ltd v Congo & Ors (2005)

Judgment Date: 06 Dec 2005

In the circumstances a judgment debtor was beneficially interested in the shares of a company and a property owned by that company in respect of which the judgment creditor had obtained interim charging orders.

View case

JSC Zestafoni G Nikoladze Ferralloy Plant v Ronly Holdings Ltd (2004)

Judgment Date: 16 Feb 2004

Two out of four parties to a contract could make a binding ad hoc agreement to refer a dispute between those two parties to a sole arbitrator despite the provisions of an arbitration clause in the contract.

View case