The High Court refused the plaintiffs’ requests for two disputed categories of documents from Androula Charilaou, the ninth defendant in a commercial case concerning an alleged scheme to deprive them of shares or their benefit in ToAZ.
Mr Justice David Barniville delivered the judgment on 31 July 2019. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants conspired in a scheme for the benefit of Dmitry Mazepin, and that Ms Charilaou knowingly participated by signing a sham share purchase agreement between Belport Investments Limited and UCCU. She denies the allegations, including that she knew the agreement was false or had links with the other defendants.
Ms Charilaou admits signing the agreement as a nominee director of Belport. Her defence says she acted on instructions from her employer, CGV, had no role in reviewing the agreement, and had no direct communications with Belport about it. The plaintiffs also relied on an October 2011 letter signed on Belport’s behalf that purported to demand $1 million from UCCU over an alleged breach of the agreement.
Before the hearing, the parties agreed a number of discovery requests. Ms Charilaou agreed to produce documents or communications between her and one or more defendants concerning the alleged scheme, as well as documents relating to an Article 159(4) criminal case and related proceedings by UCCU, within the period specified in the judgment. The court said the agreed discovery, including other agreed material, should be sufficient.
The first disputed request sought documents about Sanders Enterprises Limited, including its incorporation, assets, ownership, management and trading activity, as well as records concerning Ms Charilaou’s appointment as a director and CGV’s engagement. The plaintiffs argued that the material could illuminate her links to UCCU and the other defendants. The judge said the pleaded case did not allege that Sanders acted in the alleged scheme, and the agreement at issue was between Belport and UCCU. He found no persuasive explanation for how the broad categories of Sanders records were relevant.
The second request covered documents concerning Benstock Finance Limited and Havenport Investments Limited. The plaintiffs pointed to alleged ownership links involving Eurotoaz and Sanders, and shared registered details between Benstock and Belport. The judge found the request broad and imprecise, and noted that the pleadings did not allege that either company was involved in the alleged scheme or that Ms Charilaou was a director of or involved in either.
The court refused discovery under both disputed categories. It did not determine the truth of the underlying allegations. The judge said he would discuss with counsel any remaining discovery issues, including the timing of the agreed production, and gave both parties liberty to apply if further disputes arose.