4 New Square Chambers’ Matthew Bradley KC has succeeded in striking out a high-profile claim in Kireeva v Zolotova [2024] EWHC 2705.
The Claimant, the Russian bankruptcy trustee of Mr Georgy Bedzhamov, sued Mr Bedzhamov’s partner, claiming ownership of a highly valuable property in Italy via a share in an English company. The Claimant sought to set aside the transfer of the share in that company to Mr Bedzhamov’s partner under s.423 of the Insolvency Act 1986.
Case Background
On the eve of a trial of the matter listed for July of this year, the Claimant applied for an adjournment on the basis that she had been unable, despite a variety of efforts, to secure the transfer of funds out of Russia so as to pay her legal team. A short adjournment was granted, albeit on strict terms. By her solicitors, the Claimant had to file a certificate in two months’ time, certifying that funding arrangements were in place to allow the adjourned trial to take place and providing details of the banking route by which such funding will be provided. There was an unless provision to the effect that the claim would be struck out in the event that no such certificate was filed.
The Claimant duly served such a certificate. Almost immediately the Defendant pointed out that the certificate was false, in that the specified route of funding (direct from a Moscow bank account to the English solicitors) was simply unavailable on the facts.
The Defendant successfully applied to strike out the claim on the basis that there had been non-compliance with the Court’s previous unless order, and on the alternative basis that the Claimant’s conduct in serving and thereafter continuing to prosecute her claim in reliance on the false certificate was an abuse of the Court’s process.
Court Decision and Legal Implications
In granting the application on those bases, the Court found that the falsity of the certificate was tainted by the bad faith of the Claimant’s ultimate funders, who were authorised by the Claimant to negotiate matters of funding and to ensure compliance with the Court’s prior order.
The decision is of interest to practitioners in demonstrating that (i) even on an interim application, the Court is well-equipped to reject inherently implausible evidence and (ii) the circumstances in which the court may find there to be an abuse of process are “infinitely varied”.
Matthew was instructed by Smeetesh Kakkad and Claire van der List at Gresham Legal.
