EUPillar OJSC TNK-BP Holding, OJSC TNK-BP Management v Igor Lazurenko [2012] EWHC 2781 (Ch)

Summary

The proceedings were concerned with an application for an interim injunction. The claimant, TNK-BP Group, was a Russian oil company. The defendant, Mr Lazurenko, was an employee of TNK-BP. Following allegations of corruption Mr Lazurenko resigned. On 6th August 2012, TNK-BP commenced court proceedings against Mr Lazurenko. The claimant sought to recover the allegedly corrupt receipts. In the meantime, Mr Lazurenko met some senior legal officer of the second claimant, and showed to them some document which would be damaging to TNK-BP, if disclosed. On 10th July, TNK applied for an interim injunction restraining Mr Lazurenko until 17th July 2012 from disclosing the documents. The application was granted by Roth J. On 17th July, TNK-BP sought extension of the order. The application was granted by Vos J. On 17th September 2012, Mr Lazurenco challenged the English court’s jurisdiction, and sought for the court to set aside the service of the claim on him and the injunction orders. The challenge was upheld, and the orders were discharged. In this context, the English court applied the Rome II Regulation, and held that the Russian laws were applicable. The Chancellor of the High Court held: 20 [...] both experts make it clear that under Russian law no quia timet injunction, interim or final, to restrain a threatened disclosure of confidential information is available. Rome I Article 10.1 and Rome II Article 15 may have changed the common law position under which the availability of remedies was a matter for the lex fori. They appear to make the availability of remedies a matter for the lex causae. In this case that is Russian law. It would follow that TNK-BP has not demonstrated any cause of action or serious question to be tried in respect of its claim for an interim quiai met injunction. However, there is no authority to that effect, the issue was not fully argued before me and doubts have been expressed in Dicey and Morris para 32-203 and 19 Halsbury's Laws 5th Ed para 646 note 9. Nevertheless, the doubt as to the availability of an injunction as a remedy shows that TNK-BP is unable to demonstrate a sufficient likelihood of success to satisfy the requirements of s.12(3) Human Rights Act 1998 . For these reasons I will discharge the orders made by Roth and Vos JJ and dismiss the application of TNK-BP for their continuance. 21 If there is no cause of action then there is no jurisdiction to make any of the orders sought by TNK-BP. The appropriate remedy is not the relief sought by paragraphs 3(1) or (2) of the application notice issued by Mr Lazurenko but an order under CPR 3.4(2) or 24.2(a)(i) summarily striking out or dismissing the claim. [...]” [20-21] The costs were ordered to be paid to Mr Lazurenko. An application for the payment of costs was made by Mr Lazurenko. The matter reached the Court of Appeal, and Lord Justice Lewison held: “6 The Chancellor had ordered the payment by TNK of £300,000 as an interim payment on account of costs to be made by 30 October. TNK did not comply with that order, but the stay was nevertheless continuing. […] […] 15 The Chancellor, as I have said, awarded costs on an indemnity basis. I find his reasons compelling and I will order those costs that I have ordered to be paid to be assessed on the indemnity basis.” [2013] EWCA Civ 137 [6 and 15]