IPJSC United Company Rusal v Whiteleave Holding Limited & Ors

The court may authorise alternative service where there is a good reason to do so, including where statutory service within the jurisdiction is technically available but may not give the defendant effective notice. The overriding objective supports a method likely to bring proceedings to the defendant’s attention and to preserve a fair opportunity to participate.

Permission to amend should ordinarily be granted where the amendment is arguable, coherent and properly particularised, and the balance of injustice favours determining the real issues. Further particulars may be ordered without refusing the amendment.

A split trial is exceptional in case-management terms. It requires a real and substantial advantage over a single trial, assessed pragmatically by reference to cost, delay, duplication, appeals, settlement and the clarity of the proposed division.

Rusal brought proceedings concerning alleged breaches of a shareholders’ agreement governing the affairs of Norilsk Nickel. At the first case management conference, the court considered two applications and a proposal for a split trial.

First, Rusal sought permission under CPR r.6.27 to serve documents on Roman Abramovich by alternative means, including through lawyers said to represent him. Service at an address associated with his corporate control of Fordstam was also available under the Companies Act 2006.

Secondly, Rusal sought permission under CPR 17.1(2)(b) to amend its particulars of claim. Finally, the First and Second Defendants sought separate trials of liability, quantum and remedies. The central questions were whether alternative service was justified, whether the disputed amendment should be permitted, and whether bifurcation would further the overriding objective.

1. Alternative service. The court granted the application. Service at Fordstam’s registered address was permitted by sections 790K, 790M and 1140 of the Companies Act 2006, even if Mr Abramovich was outside the jurisdiction. Nevertheless, there was a good reason under CPR r.6.27 to authorise additional service through Kobre & Kim LLP. The evidence raised doubts about the continuing effectiveness of the Fordstam address, including its apparent residential character, overdue filings, possible changes in ownership and the absence of evidence that Mr Abramovich monitored the address.
2. The purpose of the order was to maximise the prospect of actual notice and preserve a fair opportunity to participate. Service on lawyers apparently instructed in other matters was likely to bring the proceedings to Mr Abramovich’s attention. The exceptional-circumstances test applicable where service abroad under the Hague Service Convention would otherwise be required was not engaged because a valid domestic service route remained available. Had it applied, the test would nevertheless have been satisfied, particularly in view of the likely delay, the need for ongoing notice and the inadequacy of the existing address.
3. Amendment. Permission was granted to add the allegation that overcharging by PSL was inferred to be continuing. Applying the overriding objective, the amendment arose from facts already pleaded, was arguable and formed part of the wider case concerning continuing diversion of cashflows and profits. Further information was ordered within 28 days because the inference was insufficiently particularised. Granting the amendment did not determine the scope of disclosure, which was left to the later case management conference.
4. Split trial. The application was refused. The court applied a pragmatic balancing exercise under CPR r.3.1 and the overriding objective. A split would require overlapping expert evidence, risk multiple trials and appeals, delay finality, consume additional judicial resources and reduce the prospects of settlement. Several issues proposed for later stages concerned liability or remedies rather than quantum, making a clean division difficult. The action would therefore proceed in one trial dealing with liability, quantum and remedies, with remediation left open.