JSC Mezhunarodniy Promshlenniy Bank and Another v Pugachev and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Chief Master Marsh |
| Judgment Date | 15 January 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] EWHC 295 (IPEC) |
| Docket Number | Case No: BL-2018-001871 |
| Court | Intellectual Property Enterprise Court |
| Date | 15 January 2020 |
[2020] EWHC 295 (IPEC)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS
OF ENGLAND AND WALES
BUSINESS LIST (ChD)
7 Rolls Building
Fetter Lane
London EC4A 1NL
Chief Master Marsh
Case No: BL-2018-001871
Mr Tim Akkouh (instructed by Hogan Lovell) appeared on behalf of the Claimants
The Defendants were not represented
(As Approved)
THE CHIEF MASTER: This is the hearing of an application made by the claimants that is consequential upon an order made by Deputy Master Jefferis on 8 October 2019. The Deputy Master's order required the fifth defendant, Ms Arkhipova, to take certain steps in relation to disclosure by 5 November 2019 and, in default of taking those steps and complying with the order, her application within these proceedings was to be dismissed.
In brief, these proceedings concern the sale of a property known as Glebe Place. Ms Arkhipova invites the court to grant a declaration that she has an interest in the property. The hearing of her application is due to come before a High Court judge later this year. The effect, if the claimants are able to establish their application, will be that her application will be dismissed and that the enquiry before the High Court judge will not take place.
I will say at the outset that the making of an order for disclosure that is backed by a sanction of the type contained in the order of Deputy Master Jefferis gives rise to concerns. I am not suggesting for a moment that it was not appropriate to make the order in the circumstances of this case. However, there is always a difficulty, in establishing at a later date whether there has been a failure to comply with the order for disclosure in a material respect, that being the test specified in Marcan Shipping (London) Ltd v Kefalas [2007] EWCA Civ 463 at [34] of the judgment of Moore-Bick LJ.
If the court on a subsequent hearing finds that there has been a failure to comply in a material respect then the court can consider what consequences should flow from that failure. It is not, however, entitled merely to overlook the breach. That is because the sanction takes effect from the moment of breach, not from the date of the subsequent order. But it is always open to the subsequent court to consider whether, in exceptional circumstances, relief should from the effect of the sanction should be granted.
The position today is that the fifth defendant is not present. She was represented at an earlier stage but ceased to be represented some time ago. She has, in an email dated 14 January 2020, requested the court to vacate the hearing and for the claimants' application to be considered at the trial in March 2020. She adds that she is about to finish negotiations with UK lawyers, so that she can be...
To continue reading
Request your trial