This order addresses the procedural transition of a high-stakes dispute over beneficial ownership and trust validity from a summary Part 8 procedure to a full trial, conditioned upon the fortification of undertakings.
Why did Roman Abramenko initiate Part 8 proceedings against Igor Chuprin regarding the control of KamaGames entities?
The dispute centers on a claim of beneficial ownership and trustee authority over several corporate entities, specifically Zotobi Management DMCC, KamaGames International Group Limited, and Kama Games Limited. The Claimant, Roman Abramenko, sought an interim injunction to assert control over these companies, relying on a Declaration of Trust dated 10 November 2016. The Defendant, Igor Chuprin, contested the validity of this trust, characterizing it as a "sham" designed to shield assets from matrimonial proceedings.
The procedural posture of the case was initially defined by the Claimant’s attempt to resolve these complex ownership questions through the summary Alternative Procedure. As noted in the court records:
In these Part 8 Proceedings, the Claimant has made the Injunction Application before the Court, in which he seeks interim orders of injunction against the Defendant.
The stakes are significant, involving the control of the KamaGames group, with the court ultimately determining that the factual disputes were too profound for the summary nature of Part 8.
Which judges presided over the hearings for CFI 095/2024 in the DIFC Court of First Instance?
The matter was heard by H.E. Justice Michael Black KC and H.E. Justice Andrew Moran. Justice Black KC presided over the initial hearing on 17 January 2025 and issued an order on 24 January 2025 adjourning the injunction application to a return date. Subsequently, H.E. Justice Andrew Moran presided over the Return Date Hearing on 30 January 2025 and issued the Order with Reasons on 13 February 2025, which mandated the transition to Part 7 proceedings and ordered the fortification of undertakings.
What specific legal arguments did Roman Abramenko and Igor Chuprin advance regarding the injunction and fortification?
The Claimant, Roman Abramenko, argued for the necessity of an interim injunction to protect his alleged position as the new trustee of the trust holding the shares in the KamaGames entities. He offered the standard undertaking and indemnity as to damages to support his application.
Conversely, the Defendant, Igor Chuprin, challenged the legitimacy of the trust, arguing it was a sham. Regarding the Claimant’s offer of an undertaking, the Defendant sought significant financial security. As the court observed:
In mandatory support of the Injunction Application, the Claimant has offered the usual undertaking and indemnity as to damages. In response to that undertaking offered, the Defendant has made the Fortification Application on the grounds summarised at Section D of his Skeleton Argument [HB/957].
The Defendant initially requested a much higher level of security, noting:
The Defendant had sought fortification of the undertaking in the amount of AED 50,000,000 but this amount was sought on the basis that the Court might order an injunction in the draconian terms sought in the Injunction Application.
What was the precise doctrinal issue the court had to resolve regarding the suitability of Part 8 proceedings?
The court had to determine whether the Claimant’s reliance on the Part 8 "Alternative Procedure" was appropriate given the existence of substantial, disputed facts. Under the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC), Part 8 is generally reserved for matters where there is no substantial dispute of fact. The court had to decide if the allegations of a "sham trust" and the competing claims to ultimate beneficial ownership of the KamaGames entities necessitated a shift to the more rigorous Part 7 procedure, which allows for full disclosure, witness evidence, and cross-examination.
How did Justice Andrew Moran apply the test for procedural suitability and the requirement for undertaking fortification?
Justice Moran concluded that the complexity of the factual matrix—specifically the validity of the 2016 Declaration of Trust—rendered the Part 8 procedure entirely inappropriate. The court emphasized that such fundamental disputes over beneficial ownership cannot be resolved through summary applications.
For these reasons, the proceedings should either never have been commenced using the Alternative Procedure under Part 8 of the RDC and/or should certainly not continue under that procedure.
Consequently, the court ordered a transition to Part 7 and mandated a "speedy trial" to resolve the issues of trust validity and beneficial ownership. To balance the interests of the parties while the injunction application remained adjourned, the court exercised its discretion under RDC Part 25 to require the Claimant to provide financial security for his undertaking.
Which specific DIFC statutes and RDC rules were applied to govern the injunction and procedural transition?
The court relied on Article 32 of the DIFC Court Law 2004, which provides the court with the power to grant injunctions and other interim relief. Procedurally, the court applied RDC Part 8 (Alternative Procedure) and RDC Part 7 (General Procedure) to determine the appropriate track for the litigation. Furthermore, the court invoked RDC Part 25, specifically Rule 25.25, regarding the requirements for injunction orders and the necessity of undertakings.
Part 25 of the RDC 2014 provides, so far as is material, in Rule 25.25 as follows:
“25.25 Any order for an injunction, unless the Court orders otherwise, must contain:
(I) (save where the applicant is the DFSA or the Registrar of Companies) an undertaking by the applicant to the.
How did the court utilize English case law precedents in its reasoning for the injunction application?
The court referenced American Cyanamid v Ethicon [1975] AC 396, the foundational authority for the grant of interim injunctions, which requires the court to consider whether there is a "serious issue to be tried" and where the "balance of convenience" lies. The court also cited Ashworth v Royal National Theatre [2014] EWHC 1176 (QB) to reinforce the principles regarding the limits of interim relief. The court’s application of these precedents was summarized as follows:
The Court held that although there was a serious issue to be tried on the interpretation of the contracts, there was no real prospect that the claimants would obtain specific performance or a final injunction in substantially the form of the interim relief sought.
What was the final disposition of the court regarding the injunction and the financial requirements imposed on the Claimant?
The court ordered that the Injunction Application be adjourned generally to abide by the outcome of a speedy trial. The Claimant was ordered to fortify his undertakings by depositing AED 10,000,000 into the Court Account with Emirates NBD.
The Claimant shall within fourteen days of the date of the Order dated 5 February, fortify his undertakings given in Schedule A hereto, by depositing the amount of AED 10,000,000 into the Court Account with Emirates NBD.
The court further noted that the Defendant’s own undertakings were accepted by the court in light of this fortification.
Those undertakings have now been given unconditionally by the Defendant and accepted by the Court, in the knowledge of the amount of fortification of the Claimant’s undertaking for damages of AED 10,000,000.00, that this Court has ordered, as next explained.
What are the wider implications of this ruling for DIFC practitioners regarding Part 8 proceedings and sham trust allegations?
This case serves as a stern reminder that the DIFC Court will not permit parties to bypass the rigors of a full trial by using Part 8 for matters involving complex factual disputes or allegations of fraud/sham. Practitioners must anticipate that if a case involves "serious issues to be tried" regarding the validity of a trust or beneficial ownership, the court will proactively shift the matter to Part 7. Furthermore, the court’s willingness to order substantial fortification (AED 10 million in this instance) demonstrates that the "usual undertaking as to damages" is not a mere formality and that the court will ensure the respondent is adequately protected against the potential impact of an interim injunction.
Where can I read the full judgment in Roman Abramenko v Igor Chuprin [2025] DIFC CFI 095?
The full judgment is available on the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0952024-roman-abramenko-v-igor-chuprin
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| American Cyanamid v Ethicon | [1975] AC 396 | Standard for interim injunctions |
| Ashworth v Royal National Theatre | [2014] EWHC 1176 (QB) | Principles on interim relief |
Legislation referenced:
- DIFC Court Law 2004, Article 32
- RDC Part 7
- RDC Part 8
- RDC Part 25, Rule 25.1, Rule 25.25