Danilina v Chernukhin & Ors, Court of Appeal - Commercial Court, December 05, 2017, [2017] EWHC 3052 (Comm)

Resolution Date:December 05, 2017
Issuing Organization:Commercial Court
Actores:Danilina v Chernukhin & Ors

Neutral Citation Number: [2017] EWHC 3052 (Comm)

Case No: CL-2017-000117





Royal Courts of Justice

Rolls Building, 7 Rolls Buildings

Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1NL

Date: 05/12/2017

Before :


Between :

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Paul Stanley QC (instructed by Byrne and Partners LLP) for the Claimant

Jonathan Crow QC and James Weale (instructed by Clifford Chance LLP) for the Defendants

Hearing date: 10 November 2017

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr. Justice Teare :

  1. This is another application by a party to litigation in this court to be released from the collateral use prohibition on documents disclosed in the litigation. The application is brought pursuant to CPR 31.22(1)(b); see The Libyan Investment Authority v Societe Generale SA [2017] EWHC 2631 for a recent illustration of this jurisdiction.

  2. The applicant is Ms. Lolita Vladimirovna Danilina. She has commenced proceedings in this court against the respondent, Mr. Vladimir Chernukhin, seeking declaratory relief that she is the beneficial owner of Navigator Equities Limited with the result that she, not Mr. Chernukhin, is party to a Shareholders' Agreement (``SHA'') with Mr. Oleg Deripaska. Upon the assumption that a report by SC Strategy Limited dated 8 September 2016 (``the Report'') was disclosed to her in these proceedings she seeks permission from the court to use the Report in ``(a) correspondence with SC Strategy or its professional advisers and (b) correspondence with, or a complaint to, the Information Commissioner''. The Report suggests that Ms. Danilina wrongly accepted large sums of money to assist Mr. Deripaska in defending a claim brought against him in arbitration by Mr. Chernukhin. Ms. Danilina maintains that the suggestions have no proper factual basis.

  3. Ms. Danilina considers that the Report contains ``personal data'' within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998 (``the Act'') and that SC Strategy ``processed'' that personal data within the meaning of the Act. She has therefore submitted a subject access request to SC Strategy requesting details of all her personal data held by SC Strategy. She did so on 22 March 2017. But, by letter dated 3 April 2017, SC Strategy has rejected the request and maintains that its activities do not fall within the Act. If she is to probe SC Strategy's statement that they do not ``process data'' she needs to be able to refer to the Report in correspondence with SC Strategy. And if she is to complain to the Information Commissioner that SC Strategy has failed to comply with the Act she also needs to be able to refer to the Report. Those, in short form, are the reasons for this application.

  4. The circumstances in which Ms. Danilina received a copy of the Report are not transparent. The respondent to this application, Mr. Chernukhin, suggests that Ms. Danilina was given a copy of the Report by Mr. Deripaska. If that is so then it is difficult to see why she needs the permission of the court to use the Report in the manner intended. However, I am told that the parties are content to treat the Report as having been disclosed to her by Mr. Chernukhin. On that agreed but apparently fictitious basis the applicant needs the permission of this court to use the document in the manner intended.

  5. The background to this application, like many proceedings in this court, involves a dispute between two wealthy Russian businessmen. It is necessary to note the background because Mr. Crow QC on behalf of Mr. Chernukhin says that it is relevant to the determination of the application and in any event the background sets the application in its factual context. In order to recount the background it is necessary to refer to a London arbitration award issued in arbitration proceedings commenced by Mr. Chernukhin against Mr. Deripaska. I am assured by counsel that notwithstanding the usual confidentiality of arbitration proceedings I may properly refer to that award. That is because both Mr. Chernukhin and Mr. Deripaska, the parties to the arbitration, have agreed that documents from the arbitration, including the arbitration award, may be used in these proceedings.

  6. Mr. Deripaska and (according to Mr. Chernukhin) Mr. Chernukhin were parties to a joint venture, the subject matter of which was a valuable real estate site in central Moscow. On 31 May 2005 the SHA was agreed. The joint venture vehicles were Navigator and Filatona, each of which held 50% of Navio Holdings Limited, a special purpose vehicle which held the parties' stake in TGM, the owner of the real estate. At the time Mr. Chernukhin had left Russia and was resident in the UK. Ms. Danilina, who was in a close relationship with Mr. Chernukhin, was named...

To continue reading