The High Court granted judgment in default of appearance against Belport Investments Limited and Yevgeniy Yakovlevich Sedykin in a dispute over shares in Russian company OJSC Togliattiazot (ToAZ). The court also ordered asset restraints and disclosure in aid of enforcement. It did not assess damages, which are to be determined at the same time as the trial against the other defendants.
The plaintiffs—Trafalgar Developments Limited, Instantania Holdings Limited, Kamara Limited and Bairiki Incorporated—allege that the defendants conspired in a scheme to deprive them of their shares, or the benefit of their shares, in ToAZ for the benefit of Dimitry Mazepin. They claim to own more than 70% of ToAZ. The court stressed that this application concerned only Belport and Mr Sedykin, who had not entered appearances, and made no findings on the claims against the other defendants.
Justice David Barniville found that the plaintiffs had met the procedural requirements for default judgment, including service of the proceedings and motion, filing the amended statement of claim, and the defendants’ failure to appear. The plaintiffs also provided affidavit evidence supporting their allegations. The judge said it was appropriate to consider that evidence given the serious and complex claims, and found it sufficient to verify the claims against these two defendants for the application.
The plaintiffs alleged that Belport was party to a purported share purchase agreement which Russian investigative authorities described as a sham transaction. They also alleged that Mr Sedykin was involved in an attempt to take control of ToAZ’s board and in litigation pursued on behalf of Eurotoaz Limited. The judgment recounts evidence that a Russian criminal conviction against Mr Sedykin was partly altered on appeal: the appellate court released him from punishment on one count because the limitation period had expired, while upholding the remainder of the verdict. These matters formed part of the plaintiffs’ evidence; the defendants did not contest the application.
The court granted judgment in default in the terms sought in the amended statement of claim, including declarations concerning unlawful conspiracy and damages. It directed that any damages be assessed with the trial against the other defendants. It also granted worldwide Mareva-type relief, subject to protections for third parties, and ordered disclosure of assets, bank accounts and steps taken to place assets beyond the plaintiffs’ reach. The court dispensed with an undertaking as to damages but gave Belport and Mr Sedykin liberty to apply to vary the relief, including on whether such an undertaking should be required. The precise terms of the formal order remained to be discussed with counsel.