“(b) to the best of its ability after making reasonable inquiries, [to] provide the answers in writing to the questions set out in Schedule D; and (c) [to] supply to the [Bank’s] solicitors copies of all documents in its control (which for these purposes shall mean documents which are or were in its physical possession and/or to which it has a right to possession and/or to which it has a right to inspect or take a copy) which evidence the matters set out in … (b) above).”
“(c) In respect of each of [the Borrowers]: … (ii) Full particulars of the basis on which Georgy Timichev is authorised to act on behalf of the relevant Respondent and/or to act as the signatory of the relevant Respondent’s account or accounts at Trasta; (iii) Confirmation and full particulars of any and all persons authorised to act on behalf of the relevant Respondent, whether as director or under any other authority including Powers of Attorney”
"Dear Paul, As you can understand our Group is growing and we need some intergroup restructuring. So in accordance with the current policy of the Group we would like to have in all companies under your administration Mr Shalabayev as UBO. Could you send us all papers we need to sign in order to make necessary changes. After that we would like you to issue new Trust Declarations. Anna and Daria will provide you with information and [a] copy of [the] passport of Mr Shalabayev if necessary. The procedure of sending you orders for signing and issuing documents on behalf of the companies remains the same. Could you receipt instructions from Mr Shalabayev to be sent from email instructions@eastbri[d]gecapital.com. The contact people you can ask for information and ask questions are Daria Kabanova, Anna Volodina, Alexander Udovenko, Nikolay Michailov, and Yana Biryukova. Below there is a list of companies under your administration. [There followed the names of 102 companies] Thank you, Alexander Udovenko Eastbridge Capital Limited, Level 16, City Tower … London"
“Please provide a selection by these companies, who are their current directors, taking into account the transfers”
“Greetings, Can you please tell me what kind of companies are Brotex Group Ltd and Ditron Solutions Ltd?”
“Dear Paul, I would like to make changes concerning beneficial owners in some companies registered with your help. I kindly ask you to change the UBO backdated from me to the mentioned people by the same dare that I became the UBO of those companies. The previous Trust Declarations issued in my name in this case should be considered invalid For these companies we will need backdated Trust Declarations”
“You need to forward 2 letters – one to the agent, one – to us. In relation to the companies MADEN HOLDING INC, PERSPECTIVE COMMUNICATIONS INC, ALDRIDGE VENTURES LTD, BRANDEN & ASSOCIATES LTD. It is necessary to get the following: 1) Get the Instrument of Transfer with the signature from Timichev himself. The table refers to some UBO forms– have these already been signed, if yes, where are the scans? 2) To write a letter to the agent and request the following documents from Timichev’s address (if these have not already been sent to you):" Profdept@gmail Dear Elizabet, Please be aware that I need the following original documents for the companies MADEN HOLDING INC, PERSPECTIVE COMMUNICATIONS INC, ALDRIDGE VENTURES LTD, BRANDEN & ASSOCIATES LTD: 1) Apostilled resolutions re change of Director and Shareholder 2) New Share Certificate 3) Trust Declarations in my favour Thank you Profdept@gmail Dear Elizabet, Please be aware that I need the following original documents for the companies MADEN HOLDING INC, PERSPECTIVE COMMUNICATIONS INC, ALDRIDGE VENTURES LTD, BRANDEN & ASSOCIATES LTD: 1) Apostilled resolutions re change of Director and Shareholder 2) New Share Certificate 3) Trust Declarations in my favour Thank you 3. It would be better to write a letter to all of us with notification and attach the scans. To notify that change of the director and the shareholder took place, but we are waiting for the documents from the agent. We are also waiting for the change of the Beneficiary and indicate the dates, so that Chaeva would be able to record this in the general register as well as we with our table (provided that the dates are already precise and you have checked everything).”
“Please, be reminded that we are looking for the following documents to be submitted by the agent in original copies 1) Apostilled resolutions re change of Director and Shareholder 2) New Share Certificate 3) Trust Declarations in favour of Mr Heorhi Tsimichau. 4) Instrument of Transfer signed by Mr Heorhi Tsimichau”
“Please find below the letter instructing the agent to change the contact person and the list of the companies by beneficiaries. We need to forward, on behalf of each beneficiary, the same letter with the list of companies. Note: it is required to insert a contact e-mail of each UBO (also being a contact person). The total number of letters must be equal to 5 (five)”
“Few days ago I requested from DS Express [a Russian service provider] to Sign attached POA and they did. Please put stamp of appropriate company on it and send me scan.”
“As you are probably aware, we have been negotiating with Mukhtar in connection to the legal fees, indemnities and compensations due to the BTA law suits against Mukhtar and his companies. It is now apparent (or for a long time now) that Mukhtar is not able to keep his word or make good his obligations”
“In order to do this amicably you must settle all outstanding invoices, as those attached hereto, fee notes below and invoices to be followed (tomorrow) from me on time spent basis for ALL court cases plus the remainder of the agreed indemnity of GBP 4.5m by WEDNESDAY13th October 2010 ”
“The Eleventh Defendant [Austin] was a party to the Bank Assistance Agreement and the Future Loan Understanding in the same way as the other Represented Corporate Defendants. The Eleventh Defendant is owned and controlled by Mr Timichev”
“We understand that the current director, Mr Kythreotis, is refusing to sign the necessary resolutions to appoint Mr Timichev as a director. As a result we may be forced to obtain a court order in the BVI to forcibly remove Mr Kythreotis and have Mr Timichev appointed. Naturally this may take some time.”
“a power of the court under [the CPR] to make an order includes a power to vary or revoke the order”
“10.04 Contacting other party to a matter You must not communicate with any other party who to your knowledge has retained a lawyer, or a business carrying on the practice of lawyers, to act in a matter, except: (a) to request the name and address of the other party's lawyer; (b) where it would be reasonable to conclude that the other party's lawyer has refused or failed for no adequate reason either to pass on messages to their client or to reply to correspondence, and has been warned of your intention to contact their client direct; (c) with that lawyer's consent; or (d) in exceptional circumstances.”
“The method by which issues of fact are tried in our courts is well settled. After the normal processes of discovery and interrogatories have been completed, the parties are allowed to lead their evidence so that the trial judge can determine where the truth lies in the light of that evidence. To that rule there are some well-recognised exceptions. For example, it may be clear as a matter of law at the outset that even if a party were to succeed in proving all the facts that he offers to prove he will not be entitled to the remedy that he seeks. In that event a trial of the facts would be a waste of time and money, and it is proper that the action should be taken out of court as soon as possible. In other cases it may be possible to say with confidence before trial that the factual basis for the claim is fanciful because it is entirely without substance. It may be clear beyond question that the statement of facts is contradicted by all the documents or other material on which it is based. The simpler the case the easier it is likely to be to take that view and resort to what is properly called summary judgment. But more complex cases are unlikely to be capable of being resolved in that way without conducting a mini-trial on the documents without discovery and without oral evidence. As Lord Woolf said in Swain v Hillman, at p 95, that is not the object of the rule. It is designed to deal with cases that are not fit for trial at all.”
“I am not satisfied to the necessary standard that I can find that the evidence that has been given is literally incredible and I do not propose, therefore, to proceed upon the basis that there has been a wholesale breach [of the Unless Order] by reason of the failure to produce further documentation”
“who gives instructions to .. their agentsconcerning the decisions and actions they should take and generally concerning [their] activities” and as to: “whether anyone else other than the directors have power to act on[their] behalf and, if so, who and how/why?" or to give “Confirmation and full particulars of any and all persons authorised to act on behalf of the relevant Respondent, whether as director or under any other authority including Powers of Attorney” or to provide: “ … copies of all documents in its control (which for these purposes shall mean documents which are or were in its physical possession and/or to which it has a right to possession and/or to which it has a right to inspect or take a copy) which evidence [these] matters”
“I do not think that it would be right to drive a litigant from the judgment seat without a determination of the issues as a punishment for his conduct, however deplorable, unless there was a real risk that that conduct would render the further conduct of proceedings unsatisfactory. The Court must always guard itself against the temptation of allowing its indignation to lead to a miscarriage of justice.”
“28 Striking out Mr van Hoogstraten's Defence and Counterclaim and barring him from defending the action and prosecuting his counterclaim and proceeding with his application challenging Master Bowman's order is a draconian step which can only be ordered in extreme circumstances and as a last resort.Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights provides that in the determination of his civil rights and obligations everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent tribunal established by law. The right of access to the court constitutes an element inherent in that right, but it is not an absolute right and may be subject to limitations e.g. in respect of vexatious litigants, security for costs, statutory limitation periods and special provision in case of minors and persons of unsound mind: the right of access calls for regulation according to the needs and resources of the community and individuals: Ashingdane v UK(1985) 7 EHRR 528 , paragraph 57... ... 31 The authorities establish that there are two separate (though related) grounds on which the jurisdiction may be exercised: see Arrow Nominees Inc v Blackledge[2000] BCLC 187 and Asiansky v Bayer-Rosin[2001] EWCA 1792 . The first ground is where the conduct of the party in question has jeopardised a fair trial or prevented the court from doing justice... ... 32 The second ground is that the conduct of Mr van Hoogstraten is such a flagrant abuse of process and such a challenge to the administration of justice that (irrespective whether a fair trial is possible) an order to this effect is required in the interests of the administration of justice”
“I adopt, as a general principle, the observations of Mr Justice Millett in Logicrose Ltd v Southend United Football Club Limited (The Times,5 March 1988 ) that the object of the rules as to discovery is to secure the fair trial of the action in accordance with the due process of the Court; and that, accordingly, a party is not to be deprived of his right to a proper trial as a penalty for disobedience of those rules - even if such disobedience amounts to contempt for or defiance of the court - if that object is ultimately secured, by (for example) the late production of a document which has been withheld. But where a litigant's conduct puts the fairness of the trial in jeopardy, where it is such that any judgment in favour of the litigant would have to be regarded as unsafe, or where it amounts to such an abuse of the process of the court as to render further proceedings unsatisfactory and to prevent the court from doing justice, the court is entitled - indeed, I would hold bound - to refuse to allow that litigant to take further part in the proceedings and (where appropriate) to determine the proceedings against him. The reason, as it seems to me, is that it is no part of the court's function to proceed to trial if to do so would give rise to a substantial risk of injustice. The function of the court is to do justice between the parties; not to allow its process to be used as a means of achieving injustice. A litigant who has demonstrated that he is determined to pursue proceedings with the object of preventing a fair trial has forfeited his right to take part in a trial. His object is inimical to the process which he purports to invoke.”