Rogachev v Goryainov: Consequentials Judgment
On 26 September 2024 we were delighted to report a significant victory for our client, Mikhail Goryainov, the Defendant in long-running Chancery Business List proceedings against Andrey Rogachev following a 12-day trial before HHJ Johns KC, sitting as a Judge of the High Court. The consequentials hearing in that matter subsequently took place on 3, 4 and 5 December 2024 with the consequentials judgment being handed down on 19 December 2024. Mr Rogachev has been ordered to pay our client in excess of US$12.6 million by way of balancing payment following dissolution of the parties’ business venture, plus an additional £4 million by way of an interim payment on account of costs.
Consequentials hearings and resulting judgments rarely get much attention, but in this instance it was notable that many items remained in dispute at the hearing, and the Claimant’s conduct, both throughout the life of the matter and in relation to consequential matters, has been the subject of extensive judicial criticism. In the light of that conduct, the judge took the unusual step of awarding our client all of his costs on the indemnity basis. The various reasons underpinning that award of costs on the indemnity basis include:
Failed accusations against our client that he had fraudulently inflated the amount of costs spent on one property by US$10 million, despite the Claimant’s own witness corroborating our client’s position, which was nevertheless unsuccessfully pursued to trial [79];
Two accusations of theft against our client’s Father and our client himself were pursued but then belatedly dropped at the opening of trial and before closing arguments respectively [80];
The judge’s finding that the Claimant concealed undeclared cash income by not declaring rent rolls for several years, despite confirming in evidence that such rent rolls existed, and which occasioned unnecessary and costly additional expert work [81-82];
This case began with “seriously unreasonable conduct” upon the obtaining of a freezing order against our client which was later discharged for disclosure failures and “further unreasonable conduct followed” [83];
The Claimant’s approach to consequential matters also “at least bordered on unreasonable conduct” and included [85]:
the taking of opportunistic points on currency by trying to take advantage of the recent devaluation of the Russian Ruble;
the solicitor with conduct giving witness evidence seeking to challenge findings made by the judge as to undeclared cash income at trial based on what an “unidentified solicitor” acting for the Claimant had subsequently told her what the Claimant’s state of mind was when he gave evidence at trial;
the Claimant’s expert “engineering” a situation by submitting late evidence prior to the hearing in which only points on which the Claimant may gain an advantage on the amount of balancing payment would be scrutinized; and
documents to effect the separation being provided inexplicably late by the Claimant, with him even going as far as to provide apparently identical documents during the hearing to those which our client had provided weeks prior.
The CANDEY team acting for Mr Goryainov were Sam Claydon (Partner), Yana Chekavska (Solicitor) and Zoia Miller (Trainee Solicitor). CANDEY instructed Tim Akkouh KC and Sebastian Mellab, both of Essex Court chambers, as Counsel. Michelmores LLP acted for the Claimant and instructed James Shirley (Quadrant) and Maya Chilaeva (Quadrant).
