The High Court has refused to strike out a claim brought by four companies alleging a conspiracy to deprive them of shares in Russian fertilizer producer Togliattiazot (ToAZ). It also refused a stay of the proceedings against the individual applicant on the ground that Russia was the more suitable forum, and declined to direct a preliminary trial of limitation issues.
The application was made by Eurotoaz Limited, the fourth defendant, and its director, Andrey Gennadyevich Babichev, the fifth defendant. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants took part in a scheme to damage their interests and acquire their ToAZ shares at an undervalue. Those claims remain allegations; the High Court was deciding whether the case against Eurotoaz and Mr Babichev should be ended at this stage, not whether the alleged conspiracy occurred.
Eurotoaz says it is entitled to 8.806% of ToAZ. Mr Babichev relied on copies of documents which, he argued, supported that shareholding and undermined the plaintiffs’ allegation that false or sham documents had been used in Russian proceedings. The judge found that Mr Babichev was not in a position to prove documents created before his involvement with Eurotoaz began in 2011. The exhibits were copies, and his affidavits did not establish a basis for admitting them as evidence. The judge also noted inconsistencies in the documents and previous Russian court decisions that had rejected Eurotoaz’s shareholding claims, including on limitation grounds.
The judge did not resolve whether the documents were authentic or determine who owns the disputed shares. He concluded that the material did not establish that the plaintiffs’ case was bound to fail. The parties’ Russian-law experts also disagreed about whether repeated litigation and related conduct could support a conspiracy claim or injunction under Russian law, and whether the losses claimed were recoverable by the plaintiffs. The judge held those disputes were for trial, rather than this application.
Mr Babichev argued that Russia was a more appropriate forum because the alleged conduct, witnesses and documents were largely there and Russian law applied. The court accepted that Russia might be more convenient for him, but found that key witnesses faced a real risk of arrest or detention if they attended trial there. It also cited the importance of obtaining relevant documents through Irish discovery procedures. A stay would not, in the court’s view, serve the interests of justice.
The court rejected the defendants’ arguments based on overlap with other proceedings and alleged non-disclosure when leave to serve defendants outside the jurisdiction was obtained. It also refused to direct a preliminary limitation issue, citing the unresolved factual and legal questions. The application was dismissed in its entirety. The underlying claim against the two defendants therefore continues; no final ruling on liability or the plaintiffs’ requested remedies was made.