Alexander Kuznetsov v War Group Ltd & Anor (Second Judgment)

Interim relief should not be granted where the court lacks sufficient assurance about the legal merits, damages would adequately protect the applicant, or the balance of convenience and justice favours refusal. The court may assess the merits more closely than by asking whether there is merely a serious issue to be tried where the relief would determine the position before a substantive hearing could occur.

An applicant seeking relief without notice must give a full and fair account, including relevant facts and legal arguments adverse to the application. Serious and significant non-disclosure provides an independent basis for dismissal.

The claimant sought urgent, without-notice orders concerning completion of property auction transactions, including orders concerning payment of the purchase price, provision of documents and penalties. The application was initially adjourned in [2024] EWHC 311 (KB) so that the defendants’ solicitors could be notified and respond.

After receiving further correspondence, the court found that the claimant had presented only selected emails and had omitted material communications explaining that he needed to instruct a solicitor and that the sellers were ready and willing to complete. The court therefore reconsidered both the legal merits of the interim relief and the claimant’s compliance with the duty of full and frank disclosure.

1. The application for interim relief was dismissed. The court would have refused relief even if the fuller papers had been presented initially.

2. Because the orders sought were intended to determine how completion would occur within days, before any substantive hearing could take place, it was appropriate to ask whether there was a high degree of assurance of success, whether the claim was likely to succeed, or at least to assess the legal merits, rather than applying only the serious-issue-to-be-tried threshold. The claimant failed even to establish a serious issue to be tried.

3. The defendants would not have had an adequate remedy in damages if orders had been made which did not reflect the true contractual or legal position. By contrast, any private-law right of the claimant arising from the need to instruct a solicitor, or from the proper meaning of the contract terms, could be adequately protected by damages if well-founded.

4. The balance of convenience and justice decisively favoured refusal. The proposed order would have required the court to design and impose a mechanism cutting across the contractual framework and express contractual terms.

5. There was also a separate and independent ground for dismissal. A party applying without notice must disclose relevant facts, documents and arguments, including matters adverse to the application. The claimant deliberately omitted material emails, the repeated requirement that he instruct solicitors, communications from the auctioneers, and the Special Conditions of sale. That non-disclosure was serious and significant and made dismissal inevitable.

1. High Court (King's Bench Division) — In the earlier judgment, [2024] EWHC 311 (KB), the court adjourned the without-notice application, required notice and service, and gave the defendants’ solicitors an opportunity to respond.
2. High Court (King's Bench Division) — The present second judgment dismissed the application on the merits and independently for material non-disclosure.