BL-2017-000665 - [2025] EWHC 2909 (Ch)

Fecha: 10-Nov-2025

This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30 on 10 November 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives

This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30 on 10 November 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives

Mr Justice Trower

On 30 July 2025, I handed down judgment ([2025] EWHC 1987 (Ch) (the “Judgment”)) on the trial of the Bank’s claim. In the Judgment I explained my conclusions that:

the Individual Defendants are both jointly and severally liable to the Bank for compensation for the harm it sustained on the making of the Relevant Drawdowns and the amount for which they are liable is US$1,911,877,385, less the real value of the Transferred Assets; and

ii)

the Corporate Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Bank for compensation for the harm it sustained on the making of specific identified Relevant Drawdowns, but only to the extent I identified in [1571] of the Judgment, alternatively in unjust enrichment but only to the extent I identified in [1688] of the Judgment.

In this judgment I shall use the same defined terms I used in the Judgment. In the order made at the time the Judgment was handed down (the “July Order”), I gave directions for a further hearing to determine a number of issues to the extent that the parties were unable to reach agreement. There has been some narrowing of those issues, which are reflected in a number of draft orders which have been in circulation during the course of a further consequentials hearing (the “Second Consequentials hearing”) and indeed subsequent to it. The form of those drafts also reflects the extent of the parties’ disagreements. Those orders are as follows:

a consequentials order (the “CO”) which deals with the entry of judgment, interest, release of collateral use restrictions, judgment certificates and costs;

ii)

an amended WFO;

iii)

a delivery up and disclosure order (the “DDO”) relating, amongst other matters to share certificates and stock transfer forms in a large number of companies, and information amounting to wide-ranging asset disclosure; and

iv)

an agreed order extending time pursuant to CPR 52.12(2)(a).

The issues which remain for determination are as follows:

the precise amount of the judgment sum to be entered against the Corporate Defendants, together with time for payment by Mr Kolomoisky and Mr Bogolyubov of the judgment sum;

ii)

the Bank’s claim for an award of pre-judgment interest and the rate at which post-judgment interest is to be paid;

iii)

the Bank’s application for costs, and in particular the basis of assessment of the costs to be paid by the Defendants, payment on account of costs and interest on costs;

iv)

applications by Mr Kolomoisky and Mr Bogolyubov for permission to appeal;

applications by Mr Kolomoisky and Mr Bogolyubov for a stay of execution pending appeal; and

vi)

a number of miscellaneous points on the form of the WFO, the continuation of which pending the determination of the Defendants’ applications for permission to appeal is not in issue, and on the form of the DDO.

In reaching my conclusions on the matters which remain for determination, I have had the benefit of written submissions from the Bank, Mr Kolomoisky and Mr Bogolyubov and oral argument at the Second Consequentials hearing. The Corporate Defendants were not represented at the Second Consequentials hearing and their solicitors, Pinsent Masons, have now come off the record. They did so on 24 July shortly before the Judgment was handed down (the order for the BVI Defendants was only sealed on 1 August), but well after it had been circulated in draft.

The lead on most of the Defendants’ arguments at the Second Consequentials hearing was taken by counsel for Mr Bogolyubov (Clare Montgomery KC, who appeared at the trial and Craig Morrison KC, who did not). Mr Kolomoisky was represented by Alec Haydon KC, who had appeared at the trial, but on many of the points, he simply adopted the position taken on behalf of Mr Bogolyubov. In some respects, this was a reversal of what had occurred at the trial when Mr Kolomoisky tended to take the lead. A reason for this change was that Mr Kolomoisky has been in prison awaiting trial in Ukraine since September 2023.

The consequence of Mr Kolomoisky’s imprisonment is that it is very difficult for Mr Kolomoisky to give instructions to his London solicitors and he is only able to do so via the Ukrainian lawyers instructed by him in the criminal proceedings during the limited periods of time in which he has access to them. Furthermore, the primary focus of his criminal lawyers is in progressing his defence to the offences of which he has been accused rather than discussing other matters with him such as these proceedings. He has written a letter to his English solicitors, Fieldfisher, explaining the circumstances of his imprisonment, which expresses amongst other things his conclusion that he is being “deprived of the opportunity to fully communicate with foreign lawyers, participate in and exercise my defence in foreign judicial proceedings”.

In these circumstances, Mr Haydon submitted that any discretionary order made against Mr Kolomoisky on the Bank’s application should, in the interests of justice and fairness, adopt a balanced approach recognising his personal circumstances. The Bank has not said that I should question this evidence, and I accept Mr Haydon’s submission that Mr Kolomoisky’s personal circumstances are a material factor to be taken into account when balancing the justice and fairness of some aspects of the relief the court is being asked to grant.

I also received extensive written factual and expert evidence from the Bank and Mr Bogolyubov, almost all of which was directed at questions relating to the Bank’s application for interest and the Individual Defendants’ application for a stay of execution pending determination of their applications for permission to appeal (and the appeal itself if permission is granted).