header-logo header-logo

05 October 2022
Issue: 7997 / Categories: Legal News , Disclosure , Procedure & practice , International
printer mail-detail

Territoriality row over Russian company

An order for disclosure of documents can be made against a third party outside the jurisdiction, the Court of Appeal has held.

n Gorbachev v Guriev [2022] EWCA Civ 1270, the court upheld an earlier ruling by Mr Justice Jacobs. The case stemmed from a £1bn dispute between two Russian former friends over their interests in a Russia-based fertiliser company, PJSC PhosAgro. That dispute is listed for a six-week trial in 2023, with one of the issues concerning how Alexander Gorbachev was financially supported for eight years through two Cyprus trusts created for his benefit and alleged to have been operated by a close associate of Andrey Guriev.

The claimant, Gorbachev, sought third-party disclosure of documents held electronically by law firm Forsters. Forsters countered that they held the documents on behalf of the appellants, the trustees TU Reflections and First Link Management Services, both Cypriot companies, out of the jurisdiction, and that any order for disclosure should be made against them.

Counsel for the trustees argued the principle of territoriality meant the court had no jurisdiction to order disclosure against a third party outside England and Wales under the Senior Courts Act 1981, s 34.

Giving the lead judgment, Lord Justice Males dismissed the appeal, holding the court ‘has and should exercise jurisdiction in this case’. He said the ‘critical fact’ was that the documents sought were located in England, since they ‘were sent to Forsters in England, albeit by electronic means, so that Forsters could give advice… It is, as Mr Justice Jacobs put it, not the result of chance that they are held within the jurisdiction’.

Males LJ declined to clarify the law on whether a judge might have discretion, in exceptional cases, to order disclosure where both third party and documents were outside the jurisdiction. 

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll