header-logo header-logo

05 October 2022
Issue: 7997 / Categories: Legal News , Disclosure , Procedure & practice , International
printer mail-detail

Territoriality row over Russian company

An order for disclosure of documents can be made against a third party outside the jurisdiction, the Court of Appeal has held.

n Gorbachev v Guriev [2022] EWCA Civ 1270, the court upheld an earlier ruling by Mr Justice Jacobs. The case stemmed from a £1bn dispute between two Russian former friends over their interests in a Russia-based fertiliser company, PJSC PhosAgro. That dispute is listed for a six-week trial in 2023, with one of the issues concerning how Alexander Gorbachev was financially supported for eight years through two Cyprus trusts created for his benefit and alleged to have been operated by a close associate of Andrey Guriev.

The claimant, Gorbachev, sought third-party disclosure of documents held electronically by law firm Forsters. Forsters countered that they held the documents on behalf of the appellants, the trustees TU Reflections and First Link Management Services, both Cypriot companies, out of the jurisdiction, and that any order for disclosure should be made against them.

Counsel for the trustees argued the principle of territoriality meant the court had no jurisdiction to order disclosure against a third party outside England and Wales under the Senior Courts Act 1981, s 34.

Giving the lead judgment, Lord Justice Males dismissed the appeal, holding the court ‘has and should exercise jurisdiction in this case’. He said the ‘critical fact’ was that the documents sought were located in England, since they ‘were sent to Forsters in England, albeit by electronic means, so that Forsters could give advice… It is, as Mr Justice Jacobs put it, not the result of chance that they are held within the jurisdiction’.

Males LJ declined to clarify the law on whether a judge might have discretion, in exceptional cases, to order disclosure where both third party and documents were outside the jurisdiction. 

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll