Judgment in the case of Tatneft v Gennadiy Bogolyubov, Igor Kolomoisky & Others was handed down on 24 February 2021 following the 12 week trial in 2020, with Tatneft’s claims dismissed.
The case was a long-running dispute, with notable interlocutory judgments including on:
- Security for costs (PJSC Tatneft v. Bogolyubov and ors  Costs L.R. 977);
- Permission to amend (PJSC Tatneft v. Bogolyubov and ors  4 WLR 14; PJSC Tatneft v. Bogolyubov and ors  EWHC 2499 (Comm) and subsequently PJSC Tatneft v. Bogolyubov and ors  EWHC 623 (Comm));
- Disclosure pursuant to a freezing order (PJSC Tatneft v. Bogolyubov and ors  1 WLR 5705)
- Claims to privilege (PJSC Tatneft v. Bogolyubov and ors  EWHC 2437 (Comm)) and waiver of privilege (PJSC Tatneft v. Bogolyubov and ors  EWHC 3225 (Comm)); and
- Relief from sanctions (PJSC Tatneft v. Bogolyubov and ors ( EWHC 3250 (Comm)).
The 12 week trial of the claim in Michaelmas terms 2020 is understood to have been the longest fully remote Commercial Court trial to date. Witnesses and experts from Russia, Ukraine and America all gave evidence via video link, including remote simultaneous translation from Russian and Ukrainian into English and vice versa.
Ruth den Besten and Tom Ford acted for Mr Kolomoisky led by Mark Howard QC, instructed by Andrew Lafferty, Arik Aslanyan and James Lewis at Fieldfisher LLP.
David Davies and James Sheehan appeared for Tatneft instructed by Kevin Lloyd at Debevoise & Plimpton LLP.
Richard Millett QC, Paul McGrath QC and James Collins QC were also respectively instructed on various interlocutory hearings, with James Collins QC also brought in at trial on behalf of Mr Kolomoisky to cross-examine one of the experts.
The judgment can be found here.