Polegoshko & Ors v Ibragimov & Ors
2014
CHANCERY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- MR JEREMY COUSINS QC
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Conflict of Laws
- Corporate Law
2014
CHANCERY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves a dispute over the beneficial ownership of Fingood LLP between Mr. Piolegoshko and Mr. Ibragimov. Interim reliefs and various procedural orders were granted by multiple judges. Parallel proceedings are ongoing in Lithuania. The Defendants' application to restrict the Claimants from participating in foreign proceedings was dismissed on the grounds of unfairness, absence of jurisdiction, and abuse of process.
Judgment
MR JEREMY COUSINS QC:
Background
This is an application on the part of the First to Fourth and Sixth Defendants whereby they seek an order to vary the terms of an order made by Floyd J on 11 July 2012, so that none of the Claimants in this case could, if I were to make the order requested, take any steps in foreign proceedings, wheresoever commenced, or pursued, brought by or on behalf of the Fourth Claimant Fingood LLP (“Fingood”), or against it, other than as directed by this court.
The background to the case is that Fingood is a limited liability partnership incorporated in England. The case before this court concerns a dispute between the Claimants and the Defendants as to the beneficial ownership of Fingood. The First Claimant (“Mr Piolegoshko”), and the First Defendant (“Mr Ibragimov”) both claim to be the sole beneficial owner of Fingood, a matter which will have to be determined at trial. The claim commenced on 19 April 2011, and in the claim form the Claimants sought declarations to the effect that the Second and Third Claimants, Westa Holding Ltd (“Westa”) and Holding Associates Ltd (“Holding”) were, and at all times had been since Fingood was first registered, designated members of Fingood. They sought also a declaration that the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Defendants were not and never had been members of Fingood. They sought consequential orders, in particular under section 1096 of the Companies Act 2006, that the Registrar of Companies remove from the register maintained pursuant to section 1080 of the Companies Act 2006 all and any material recording that the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Defendants are, or were, or ever had been members of Fingood.
Since that time further pleadings have been served by the parties; a Re-Amended Particulars of Claim was served on 11 July 2012 and Re-Amended Defence and Counterclaim on 11 December last year. Those pleadings were served pursuant to directions which I shall mention a little later.
Apart from the history of the pleadings, the procedural history of this case which is of some significance can be summarised as follows. On 23 May 2012 the case came before Proudman J. That was an application on the part of the Claimants for an injunction and also for an interim declaration. Proudman J declined the application for an interim declaration, which at that stage was being sought without notice. (I should add that the proposed Seventh Defendant at that time, the Registrar o