BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions >> VneshprombankLLC v Bedzhamov & Ors [2020] EWHC 2114 (Ch) (05 August 2020) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2020/2114.html Cite as: [2020] EWHC 2114 (Ch) |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
BUSINESS LIST (ChD)
Rolls Building, Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1NL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
VNESHPROMBANK LLC (a company registered and in liquidation in the Russian Federation) |
Claimant |
|
- and – |
||
(1) GEORGY IVANOVICH BEDZHAMOV (2) UNIFLEET TECHNOLOGY LIMITED |
First Defendant Second Defendant |
|
(3) PERSONS UNKNOWN (as defined in the Claim Form) (4) BASEL PROPERTIES LIMITED |
Third Defendant NCA Defendant |
|
(1) MAXIM GOLODNITSKY (2) BERKELEY SQUARE INVESTMENT PARTNERS LIMITED |
Third Parties |
____________________
Justin Fenwick QC, Daniel Saoul QC & William Harman (instructed by Mishcon de Reya LLP) for the First Defendant
Adam Baradon & Felix Wardle (instructed by Signature Litigation LLP) for the Third Parties
Hearing dates: 20 and 21 July 2020
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Covid-19 Protocol: This judgment was handed down by the judge remotely by circulation to the parties' representatives by email and release to BAILII. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 10.00 am on Wednesday 5 August 2020.
Mrs Justice Falk:
Introduction
The relevant orders
"…except for the purposes of (1) these proceedings…or (2) commencing or pursuing civil proceedings in relation to the same or related subject matter to these proceedings or (3) commencing or pursuing proceedings in this jurisdiction in connection with any Bedzhamov Asset…"
This reflects the dual purpose of the Search Order from VPB's perspective, namely both to secure assets and to obtain information relevant to its claims against GB.
"The Imaging Order is varied such that the indexing or other preparation for searches (and subsequently, subject to (a) below, searches) of electronic copies referred to at paragraph 17A of the Search Order may commence but shall be subject to:
a. 24 hours' written notice being given to Mr Golodnitsky's solicitors;
b. Mr Golodnitsky and his solicitors having the right to be present at the searches; and
c. the entitlement of the Applicant's solicitors[1] to take copies of any listed items found being subject to Mr Golodnitsky's right to prevent the Applicant's Solicitors from making a copy of any part of a document which the Supervising Solicitor believes to be privileged or incriminating."
"7. Paragraph 1 of the Variation Order shall continue to apply until a confidentiality club (if any) is formed, whether by agreement or by order of the Court…save that [there follows an immaterial variation].
8. The Claimant shall continue to be bound by the undertaking at paragraph (2) of Schedule C to the Search Order (which operates for the benefit of both the First Defendant and the Third Parties) until further order of the Court save that [there follows an immaterial variation].
9. Insofar as the restrictions contained in paragraph 1 of the Variation Order are replaced by the agreement of the parties or order of the Court, the undertaking given by Mr Tchernenko pursuant to the Variation Order (which operates for the benefit of both the First Defendant and the Third Parties) shall continue but only in respect of the non-use or disclosure of information contained in the documents that are not "listed items" as defined in the Search Order that were seen during the course of the execution of the Search Order on 29 March 2019 or the inspection of hard copy documents on 8 April 2019 (and shall not continue to apply in any other respect)."
The provision in paragraph 9 in respect of Mr Tchernenko reflected the fact that he had been part of the search party, and may have seen non-listed items in that capacity.
Role of A1
Progress (or lack of it) with the search
Search protocol
i) clarity that it is the responsibility of Keystone/VPB and Consilio to establish the status of documents reviewed, or partially reviewed, to date (including whether they are agreed listed items, whether they have been reviewed for privilege/incrimination, and by whom). Related to this, both Consilio and the Supervising Solicitor will provide a formal update as to the position to date;
ii) determination that the c.27,000 documents most recently identified by Keystone for review will be reviewed, rather than trying to restrict the search terms further;
iii) determination that disputes as to the status of a document as a listed item (or in respect of privilege or incrimination) which are not successfully resolved by the Supervising Solicitor will be referred to the court;
iv) an agreement by all parties to use reasonable endeavours to progress the review expeditiously, and to provide weekly updates;
v) agreement that documents determined not to be listed items will not be accessible by VPB, and that, unless otherwise agreed by GB and the Third Parties, no further searches will be run on them on behalf of VPB without the court's permission, but those documents will be retained until the conclusion of the proceedings (or further order);
vi) agreement that all parties will be copied in to communications with Consilio (except in respect of its retainer); and
vii) determination that, pending resolution of the matters addressed in this judgment, VPB's legal team will not share any listed items with VPB or any other person.
The Third Parties' costs
Confidentiality and undertakings sought: introduction
CPR 31.22 and use of material for other proceedings
The Third Parties' position and the release of the undertakings
Circumstances relied on to justify fresh undertakings
VPB's response to the request for undertakings
Discussion
Foreign lawyers and experts
Breach of orders?
Conclusion
i) documents obtained pursuant to the Search Order and determined to be listed items should only be released by VPB's solicitors subject to the provision of undertakings as described in this judgment; and
ii) details of the dissemination of the reports referred to at [92] above should be provided, and no further dissemination of them by Keystone should be permitted.
Note 1 That is, VPB’s solicitors. [Back] Note 2 The undertakings provided by these four individuals were not provided to GB’s solicitors as required by the terms of the Morgan J order, and they only became aware of them when the bundle for this hearing was produced. [Back] Note 3 This was stated in Ms Bloom’s witness statement of 13 July (referred to in [44] below) but was only confirmed in respect of the DIA in VPB’s skeleton argument for the hearing, and not made clear in respect of A1. [Back] Note 4 For example, only about 7.5% of the pool of c.83,000 documents referred to at [81] below derives from GB’s phone. [Back]