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.

Author: Voodoodal Nekazahn
Country: Iraq
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Art
Published (Last): 17 May 2005
Pages: 327
PDF File Size: 15.89 Mb
ePub File Size: 6.73 Mb
ISBN: 303-6-11153-324-6
Downloads: 78902
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Malajora

I take the view that if such an order is to be made in this case, then the relevant party who is being asked to conduct disclosure on such a basis, and the court before whom the application is being made, should have an appropriately clear idea as to: If that were to occur then there would inevitably be considerable further delay.

Boris Berezovsky v Roman Abramovich (2012)

The trial would have to wait many months until that appeal had been heard, judtment while that might be inevitable in relation to the Abramovich Action, it would also postpone the trial of the remaining issues in the Main Abramovjch if that trial was to come on after the Commercial Court action. If the plan was to have the Rusal issues tried in the Abramovich Action, then such an appeal would require the further adjournment of the Main and Metalloinvest Actions, with yet further delay to Mr Berezovsky’s claims.

In another insight into the business lives of the super-rich, it emerged that the money was paid through a company controlled by the Abu Dhabi royal family. 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. A ‘substantial case’ would be defined in this new rule as: Please subscribe to download the judgment. For all these, and other, reasons, Mr. He was also asked if Mr Abramovich could have built a business empire without political patronage.


The result of that appeal might not come until March or April The consequence of the absence of any evidence was that the court had no information before it from either side as to: All one can do is find the answer which is least bad. A tale of two oligarchs. It would hugely increase the scope of the Abramovich Action. That judgment identified the need to consider whether, and to what extent, all four cases needed to be managed together. One of those cases “the Abramovich Action” is proceeding in the Commercial Court.

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. Since trying them both together is not feasible, there must be a partial joinder only. Mr Berezovsky had once been the ultimate godfather in Russian politics. Roman Abramovich celebrating a Chelsea victory. He took as an example events in which are said to amount to an express agreement as to how the Rusal proceeds should be reinvested.

Abramovich beats ‘deluded’ Berezovsky. Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature. Balfour v Balfour [] 2 KB It is common ground that these are issues common to the Main Action, the Metalloinvest Action and the Abramovich Action.

Berezovsky v Abramovich – Wikipedia

Boris Berezovskyknown as one of the ” Russian oligarchs ” who became rich under the presidency of Boris Yeltsinclaimed that in he had made a contract with Roman Abramovich. It may be that assuming for these purposes that the Abramovich Action is tried first the judge trying the Abramovich Action will consider it unnecessary to make certain findings relating to these issues, so having two decisions is not inevitable. Boris Berezovsky left and Roman Abramovich right.

As Mr Rabinowitz acknowledged, there is no single, perfect, obviously right solution. It is, however, a central issue in the Main Action.

You have reach your max limit. The Abramovich trial would inevitably involve a consideration of the alleged Joint Venture between Mr Berezovsky and Badri and it would be strange, if not wrong, for the other defendants not to be bound by findings in relation to that issue as well. However, these arrangements are not writ in stone.


This corresponds with Abramovich LOI I just don’t know at all. They are common issues in the sense that they arise in all sets of proceedings on the various pleaded cases.

There is no doubt that there is a significant area of facts which will overlap as between the Chancery Division actions on the one hand and the Abramovich Action on the other.

Courts and Tribunals Judiciary | Berezovsky -v- Abramovich and Berezovsky -v- Hine

Mr Berezovsky’s position on the centrality of this point has shifted from time to time. If it remained desirable that that action should go first with the Rusal issues being determined within it then the Chancery Division actions would have to be delayed too, this time by a potentially very significant time period.

Key Phrases are not available yet. So it seems to us that the Rusal issues are sufficiently discrete, sufficiently important and sufficiently common to make it proper to try them once, in the 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 berezovdky relation to it.

The Abramovich Action and the other three actions have all berrzovsky identified as raising common questions of fact. The arrangement between the parties was that D would make payments to B and P in exchange for their assistance and protection. This judgement does not cite any other record.

The Defendants’ proposals 6. They were supported in their submissions by the Interim Administrators and by the Salford Defendants.