Linda May Green v CT Group Holdings Limited
[2023] EWHC 3168 (Comm)
Ziyavudin Magomedov & Ors v Konstantin Kuzovkov & Ors
4 October 2024
[2024] EWHC 2527 (Comm)
High Court
Imagine someone tries to pay a bribe. The people who were cheated tried to find out who paid the bribe by asking a company that helped with the transfer. The judge said the company that helped with the transfer should give information, but only if it wouldn't break laws in the country where they are based. Since giving the information would have broken those laws, the judge said no. The other two companies were not involved because they didn't exist when the bribe was attempted. So the case to find out who paid the bribe is going nowhere for now.
Key Facts
- •Claimants sought Norwich Pharmacal relief against three financial services companies ('1291 entities') for information relating to an alleged US$20 million bribe paid to a defendant in underlying proceedings.
- •The 1291 entities are: 1291 Private Office Ltd (Liechtenstein), 1291 Group (DIFC) Ltd (Dubai), and 1291 Group Europe (UK) Ltd (England).
- •The alleged bribe was connected to a conspiracy to seize the Claimants' assets, and the enquiry about the transfer was made by Mr. Muggli of 1291 Private Office in November 2021.
- •The Respondents challenged the court's jurisdiction and the method of service, and also opposed the application on the merits.
- •Liechtenstein law was central to the arguments against 1291 Private Office, concerning potential breaches of the Criminal Code and Data Protection Act.
Legal Principles
Norwich Pharmacal principles for obtaining relief: (i) good arguable case of wrongdoing; (ii) respondent mixed up in facilitating wrongdoing; (iii) respondent possesses relevant information; (iv) disclosure appropriate and proportionate.
Collier v Bennett [2020] EWHC 1884 (QB) and Stanford Asset Holdings Ltd v AfrAsia Bank Ltd [2024] 1 WLR 1131 [2023] UKPC 35
Alternative service permitted if 'good reason'; the most important purpose is communication of the document's content.
Abela v Baadarani [2013] UKSC 44
Court orders must not authorize anything contrary to the law of the country where the document is served.
CPR 6.40(4)
In non-disclosure cases, focus should be on material failures, maintaining proportion, and the interests of justice.
Mex Group Worldwide Ltd v Stewart Owen Ford and others [2024] EWCA Civ 959
Outcomes
Application for Norwich Pharmacal relief dismissed against all three 1291 entities.
Regarding 1291 Private Office: While the first three Norwich Pharmacal conditions were met, the potential breach of Liechtenstein law in disclosing the requested information, coupled with the order's unenforceability in Liechtenstein, made it inappropriate to grant the order. Regarding 1291 Dubai: The company's post-alleged-wrongdoing incorporation meant it was not 'mixed up' in the wrongdoing. Regarding 1291 UK: The company's dormancy and lack of connection to the alleged wrongdoing meant the Norwich Pharmacal relief was inappropriate.
Paragraph 2(a) of the service order (alternative service on 1291 Private Office via Liechtenstein lawyers) set aside.
The method contravened Liechtenstein law and CPR 6.40(4).
Paragraph 2(c) of the service order (alternative service on 1291 Private Office via 1291 UK) upheld.
There was a good reason for alternative service given the urgency of the application and the likelihood of the documents reaching 1291 Private Office through this route. Non-disclosure arguments were rejected.
Similar Cases
The Kingdom Bank Corporation v Moorwand Ltd
[2023] EWHC 3069 (Comm)
Cosimo Borrelli & Ors v Mutaz Otaibi & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1148 (Comm)
Filatona Trading Limited & Anor v Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan UK LLP
[2024] EWHC 2573 (Comm)
Stanford Asset Holdings Ltd and another v AfrAsia Bank Ltd (Mauritius)
[2023] UKPC 35