Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Although the trial judgment has yet to be handed down, Hannah Glover, a barrister at 3 Verulam Buildings, says the Pugachev litigation has given rise to a number of interesting interlocutory judgments.
Before it’s here, it’s on Lexis®PSL. Click here to take a free trial.
Mr Sergei Pugachev was formerly an oligarch and the owner of the largest private bank in Russia. The claimants, the relevant Russian state authority and the bank (now in liquidation), obtained a judgment in Russia against Mr Pugachev for misappropriating
some £1bn of bank funds. The present claim (the Trusts Claim) forms part of the claimants’ attempts to enforce that judgment in England. Its purpose is to ‘bust’ a series of five New Zealand discretionary trusts said to hold
assets worth £100m, which the claimants allege are properly held by Mr Pugachev beneficially.
Mr Pugachev currently lives in France, having fled the jurisdiction following the claimants’ previous enforcement efforts. He was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for contempt in 2016, although none of that time has been served. See JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshelenniy Bank and another v Pugachev  EWHC 192 (Ch),  All ER (D) 111 (Feb) and JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank and another v Pugachev  EWHC 258 (Ch),
 All ER (D) 159 (Feb).
Trial of the Trusts Claim began on 4 July 2017 before Birss J and judgment is yet to be handed down, but the case has given rise to a number of interesting interlocutory judgments. Foremost among those are the following judgments concerning an application
for adjournment of the proceedings made by Mr Pugachev some days into trial:
Having previously played no part in the Trusts Claim, Mr Pugachev issued an application to adjourn the proceedings shortly before the evidence was due to be given. He contended that the claimants had failed to obtain the necessary permission to serve
the proceedings on him in France, with the result that the court lacked jurisdiction. He claimed, most likely dishonestly, as the court found, that he had not been aware of the Trusts Claim until May 2017.
The application was adjourned by Birss J on 10 July 2017 until evidence in the trial was complete. It was considered again on 13 July 2017. At this hearing the court imposed conditions on the application, namely that Mr Pugachev was to:
The application was then heard on 26 July 2017. By this date Mr Pugachev had complied with the first condition but not the second. In the meantime, Mr Pugachev’s solicitors had come off the record, and in lieu of an application bundle Mr Pugachev
provided documents directly to the court, together with material from a French notary. The court determined that the application would be adjourned until the handing down of judgment in the Trusts Claim, with liberty to apply to any party who wished
to make representations.
The Pugachev litigation is, as Birss J pointed out in  EWHC 1972 (Ch) (para ), ‘an extraordinary set of proceedings’ and several of the points canvassed in these judgments will be of little application where parties are represented and have the benefit of advice from English qualified lawyers.
There are nevertheless some interesting general observations to be made from a case management perspective:
Unsurprisingly, Birss J gave Mr Pugachev’s application to adjourn the trial immediately short shrift. He declared it would be a ‘monumental waste of costs…and, equally important, the court’s resources’ if the trial
were to stop during cross-examination  EWHC 1761 (Ch) (para ). That is particularly to be expected in circumstances where the applicant had been aware of the claim for a significant period of time.
More unusual is the discussion in  EWHC 1847 (Ch) of the circumstances in which the court will attach conditions to an application. The court refused to require Mr Pugachev to attend for cross-examination, referring to the general principle that such a condition would be ‘very much the exception
rather than the rule’  EWHC 1847 (Ch) (para ). Birss J was however willing to require Mr Pugachev to put up security for the claimants’ costs, given his repeated breaches of court orders and to avoid prejudice to the claimants in responding to the application.
Given Mr Pugachev’s solicitors had successfully applied to come off the record by the time the application was heard on 26 July 2017, the judgment at  EWHC 1972 (Ch) contains useful guidance as to the court’s approach to litigants in person. Birss J noted that although Mr Pugachev was highly sophisticated, he at times ‘does things which naïve litigants in person often do’. It was relevant
to the court’s decision not to dismiss the application outright that Mr Pugachev was attempting to communicate with the court and regarded the applications as important. Importantly, Birss J’s approach allowed Mr Pugachev the opportunity
to make full submissions at a later date, preferably with the benefit of proper advice.
Finally, Birss J emphasised in  EWHC 1972 (Ch) (para ) that although Mr Pugachev was an unpurged contemnor who ‘seems to have treated these proceedings and the court jurisdiction with little other than disdain’, and although there were strong grounds to believe that he had given
dishonest instructions to his solicitors, he was nonetheless entitled to the due process of the court. This must of course be right.
Hannah Glover has a broad practice covering the full spectrum of commercial work undertaken in 3VB. Hannah is developing particular expertise in commercial litigation and banking and financial services. She appears unled in a wide range of matters in the High Court and county court. Prior to joining 3VB, Hannah was a lecturer in law at Pembroke College, Oxford and Wadham College, Oxford.
Interviewed by Kate Beaumont. The views expressed by our Legal Analysis interviewees are not necessarily those of the proprietor.
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
0330 161 1234