Berezovsky v Abramovich

Where complex proceedings raise substantial common issues, the court should consider case-management arrangements that avoid unnecessary duplication and inconsistent findings, provided they remain fair and practicable. Complete joinder may be inappropriate where it would make the litigation too wide or difficult to try. A partial joinder or preliminary-issue procedure may be ordered where the common issues are sufficiently discrete, important and severable, and where determining them once will save costs and court resources. Parties bound by the determination must have a fair opportunity to participate, including disclosure and evidence on the relevant issues. Speculative future appeals do not ordinarily justify postponing an otherwise appropriate case-management decision. Such arrangements may be revisited if later evidence or procedural developments materially alter the position.

Four related actions concerning Boris Berezovsky’s claims to interests in Russian aluminium and other assets were being managed together. The Commercial Court action against Roman Abramovich and three Chancery Division actions raised overlapping factual issues, particularly the alleged 2000 Dorchester Hotel agreement concerning Rusal.

The defendants proposed that the Rusal issues should be tried once in the Abramovich Action, with relevant defendants in the Chancery proceedings permitted to participate and bound by the findings. Berezovsky preferred parallel, separate proceedings or postponement of the decision. The court had to determine the fairest and most efficient method of managing the overlapping issues and the order in which the proceedings should be tried.

1. Case management and overlapping issues. The court held that it should adopt a mechanism capable of limiting repeated trials of significant common issues and removing the risk of conflicting findings, having regard to the proper administration of justice and the interests of all parties. Complete joinder was inappropriate because the proceedings would be too wide-ranging and potentially unfair or untriable.
2. Rusal issues. The Rusal issues were sufficiently discrete, important and common to justify being tried once. They had adequately defined boundaries, were substantial issues in each relevant action, and a single determination would save costs and court time while avoiding inconsistent decisions. The existence of other, less clearly defined overlapping facts did not make it wrong to resolve this significant area of overlap.
3. Participation and binding effect. The Rusal issues were to be determined as preliminary issues in the Chancery proceedings and tried with the Abramovich proceedings. The relevant Chancery defendants were entitled to disclosure, to adduce evidence and to participate in the trial on those issues, subject to trial management controls. They would be bound by the findings made.
4. Timing and review. The Abramovich Action was to be tried first. The Chancery proceedings were not to begin until judgment in the Abramovich proceedings could reasonably be expected, with time allowed for consideration of its effect. Speculative appeals did not justify changing that order. The arrangements were subject to liberty to apply and review after exchange of witness statements, since later evidence or appeals might require variation or dissolution of the order.

Not an appeal. The judgment determined case-management issues arising in four related proceedings. It referred to an earlier case-management judgment of Mann J, [2009] EWHC 1176, but that decision formed part of the same litigation.