Commercial disputes, Civil fraud and asset recovery, Company lawThursday 24 October 2024
The Commercial Court has rejected an application by the Claimants in the Magomedov litigation – a $14 billion claim concerning alleged unlawful means conspiracies and bribery – for a Norwich Pharmacal order against three financial services companies, following the hearing of jurisdiction challenges and of the Claimants’ substantive application for Norwich Pharmacal relief, at a two-day hearing before Jacobs J.
In the case of the First Respondent, the Court held that an order for alternative service by email in Liechtenstein should be set aside as being positively contrary to Liechtenstein law. Although the Court did uphold a separate order for alternative service in the UK, the substantive application failed because of the likelihood that the provision of information would be contrary to Liechtenstein law, with the Court concluding that the First Respondent “as a third party which is not alleged to have been a wrongdoer, should not be subject to speculative and unprecedented litigation” in Liechtenstein.
As against the Second and Third Respondents, the Court concluded that they had not been mixed up in the wrongdoing and so the Norwich Pharmacal applications against them failed for this reason.
Bobby Friedman and Rachael Earle acted for the successful First Respondent, instructed by Sue Thackeray, Laurence Clarke and Phoebe Alexander of Kingsley Napley.
People to view:
Articles
In the latest edition of our commercial litigation insights series, Alice Hawker examines the Court of Appeal's recent decision in G.I. Globinvestment Ltd v XY ERS UK Limited [2026] EWCA Civ 1248, considering whether a fiduciary's duty to disclose is a shield (against claims alleging breach of the ’no conflict’ or ’no profit’ rules) or a sword (to be used as a freestanding claim).
By Alice Hawker
Monday 19 October 2026
Articles
In this article in our commercial litigation insights series, Ernest Leung analyses the Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Grosvenor Property Developers Limited v Portner Law Limited [2026] EWCA Civ 1238, which provides important guidance on the test for dishonesty in civil fraud claims and the circumstances in which "Nelsonian" or blind-eye knowledge can be imputed to a party.
By Ernest Leung
Tuesday 13 October 2026
Recent Cases
Civil fraud and asset recovery, Commercial disputes
Thomas Grant KC
Friday 9 October 2026
Recent Cases
Company law, Commercial disputes, Joint venture and partnership disputes, Trusts, probate and estates: contentious
Nikki Singla KC | Caspar Bartscherer
Tuesday 6 October 2026