Claim No. CL-2012-000713
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
COMMERCIAL COURT
Court Room: No 19
7 Rolls Buildings
Fetter Lane
London
EC4A 1NL
Before:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL
B E T W E E N:
EURO-ASIAN OIL SA
and
ABILO (UK) LTD, MR DAN IGNISKA AND CREDIT SUISSE AG
Transcript from a recording by Ubiqus
61 Southwark Street, London SE1 0HL
Tel: 020 7269 0370
MR A BAKER QC AND MR S SWAROOP appeared on behalf of the Claimant
NO APPEARANCE by or on behalf of the First and Second Defendants
MS C JUNG appeared on behalf of the Third Defendant
JUDGMENT
MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL:
It does seem to me that Mr Baker’s point is well-founded, that in the absence of a draft amendment to the pleading, it is not easy to see how, logically, the material which you are seeking would give rise to the inference which appears at paragraph 1(5) of the Amended Defence and in the Further Information, which is the basis of this aspect of the defence. The history between Euro-Asian and the Igniska companies when Euro-Asian was the seller and the Igniska companies were the buyer, so far as what Mr Michailov says, is entirely consistent with the relationship in relation to these four transactions between Euro-Asian and ROD. What matters for this aspect of the defence is what the true nature of the relationship was once Abilo had been interposed between the external suppliers and Euro-Asian as purchaser and, despite your able submissions, if I may say so, I am not persuaded, certainly on the basis of anything I have heard so far, that the inference which is sought to be drawn at paragraph 1(5) of the Amended Defence can arise out of anything which could be seen from the relationship between the external sellers and Abilo as a purchaser from those external sellers once it is interposed as the sellers to Euro-Asian.
On that basis, I am not persuaded that the disclosure sought is relevant to any issue which is either currently pleaded or which it is obvious would be relevant if any technical amendment were made, nor, I am afraid, am I persuaded that CPR 31.14 is engaged under the test in Expandable Ltd v Rubin [2008] 1 WLR 1099. It seems to me that the reference to the transactions are not a direct allusion or a specific mention, and the fact that there are identified terms, whether it be CIF or “in tank” does not carry that forward into it being a specific mention of a document.
On that basis, I am afraid I am not prepared to accede to the application for disclosure. It will of course be open to you, if so advised, to seek to draft an amendment which causes the scales to fall from my eyes, and enables me to see directly the relevance, and if that occurs and a further application is made to amend and for disclosure on that basis, I shall deal with it as and when it arises.
----------------------------------------