Otkritie International Investment Management Ltd & Ors v Urumov (aka George Urumov) & Ors
2014
COMMERCIAL COURT
United Kingdom
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE EDER
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
- Commercial Law
2014
COMMERCIAL COURT
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involved multiple defendants in a fraud-related claim. Following the initial judgment, the court addressed consequential points, including representation changes, quantum of claims, recoveries, interest, costs, and stays of execution. Full judgment for loss was to be sought against all liable parties without exceeding total loss, recoveries were credited to avoid double recovery, and simple interest was applied. Costs were allocated on an indemnity basis, and stay of execution requests pending appeal were denied.
Judgment
Mr Justice Eder:
Introduction
On 10 February 2014 I delivered my Judgment in this case. On 14 March 2014 I had a further hearing dealing with various consequential matters arising from that Judgment. In the course of that hearing I indicated my decision on a large number of discrete points. This Judgment sets out my reasons for the main points which arose for decision.
Representation
At the outset, I should mention that since delivering the Judgment there have been certain changes in the representation of the parties. The claimants continue to be represented by Mr Berry QC and his team. Mr Peto QC and his team continue to represent Ms Kovarska. Mr Pinaev, Rossmore and Pleator were not represented before me and did not participate in this hearing. So far as the Urumov defendants are concerned, they are no longer represented by solicitors. Mr Urumov appeared before me as a litigant in person. Ms Balk did not appear before me. I was told by Mr Urumov that she was not well; and given the circumstances, I permitted him to address me on certain points on her behalf. Denning was not represented. The Gersamia defendants are no longer represented by solicitors. The Gersamia defendants did not appear before me although I had previously received an email from Mr Vladimir Gersamia raising certain points. As to the Jemai defendants, Jecot was not represented and did not appear before me. Mr Jemai continued to be represented by Mr Ian Smith who appeared today on a pro bono basis. Ms Jemai continues to be a litigant in person. She was unable to attend the hearing for medical reasons. She had previously applied to me for an adjournment of the hearing so far as she was concerned. I acceded to that request in relation to some but not all points.
I deal first with a number of points concerning the content of my Judgment.
Denning – quantum
First, with regard to paragraph 397 of my Judgment, the quantum of the claim against Denning has now been clarified. I now confirm that the relevant figure for the quantum of the claim against Denning is US$ 2,675,000. That is the headline figure for the purposes of paragraph 556(ii) of my Judgment and, for the avoidance of doubt, is subject to the specific point referred to in paragraph 557 of my Judgment. For the purposes of drawing up an order and subject to the points that follow in relation to credit for recoveries, I should confirm that the remainder of the relevant “headline figures” are those referred to in paragrap