CANDEY successfully challenged jurisdiction in largest valued claim ($13.8bn) in English High Courts outside collective action cases
Summary
On 17 January 2025, Mr Justice Bright handed down judgment in Magomedov & Ors v TPG Group Holdings (SBS), LP & Ors [2025] EWHC 59 (Comm) in relation to jurisdiction challenges heard in September and November 2024. Among various findings, Justice Bright found in favour of CANDEY’s client, Halimeda, namely that England was not the appropriate forum to bring this claim.
The Claimants in the underlying dispute were seeking damages against 22 Defendants totalling almost US$14bn. Mr Ziyavudin Magomedov (the First Claimant) alleged that there were two separate, but related conspiracies with the aim of wresting control of Mr Magomedov’s assets in the PJSC Novorossiysk Commercial Sea Port (“NCSP”) and in the Nineteenth Defendant (“FESCO”) respectively.
Halimeda argued that England and Wales was “neither clearly nor distinctly the most appropriate forum to hear and try the claims against [it].” Instead, the correct venue was Cyprus. This has been Halimeda’s consistent position for a period spanning four years when Mr Magomedov and various companies owned or controlled by him had initially launched proceedings in the BVI against Halimeda with almost identical claims, those claims being belatedly discontinued before reconstituted claims were launched in England.
Mr Justice Bright found that “the claims in relation to the alleged FESCO conspiracy undoubtedly have more numerous and stronger connections with Cyprus than with this jurisdiction” and is “a more appropriate jurisdiction.” Mr Justice Bright concluded by saying that, if the “Claimants had succeeded in establishing that there were serious issues to be tried but also that they could rely on one of the jurisdictional gateways, [he] would have concluded that this court should decline jurisdiction in favour of Cyprus.”
Mr Justice Bright also found that Halimeda was entitled to claim the unpaid loans that were owed by the Claimants. Halimeda and its parent company, FESCO, were found to be justified in pursuing their loan enforcement and damages claims. The judgment states that “given Halimeda’s difficulty in enforcing its debt claims in respect of the Maple Ridge Loans, it is not surprising that FESCO commenced civil proceedings against several of the Claimants, including Mr Magomedov, claiming damages referable to the Maple Ridge Loans.”
The judgment of Mr Justice Bright is the latest blow to Mr Magomedov and his attempts in recovering the damages claimed. The Claimants have indicated they will seek permission to appeal the judgment.
The CANDEY team acting for the Ninth Defendant were Yuri Botiuk (Partner), James Collins (Partner), Serene Allen (Senior Solicitor), William Stewart-Parker (Barrister), Yana Chekavska (Solicitor), Dainyah Mason (Pupil Barrister) and Andrew Cookson (Pupil Barrister).
CANDEY instructed Paul Lowenstein KC, Colleen Hanley and Sam Goodman (Twenty Essex Chambers) as Counsel.
Seladore Legal acted for the Claimants and instructed Charles Dougherty KC (2 Temple Gardens), Alistair Mackenzie (2 Temple Gardens) and William Hooper (Brick Court Chambers).
The High Court judgment can be found here.
