Lisa Lacob and Devon Airey acted for the successful defendant, Mr Eugene Jaffe, in Stein v Jaffe [2025] EWHC 2334 (Comm)

The Stein v Jaffe proceedings were described as taking place at the periphery of major commercial and political events within Russia and high-profile Russian litigation in the UK courts. The claim concerned discussions between the Russian businessman, Mr Vasily Anisimov, Mr Jaffe and Mr Stein (the Claimant) for the provision by Mr Stein of litigation assistance to Mr Anisimov in relation the claims brought against him by Mr Boris Berezovsky in 2012. The background to the claim also involved a broader spectrum of Russian litigation in the UK courts, including the claims in Recovery Partners GP Ltd & anor v Rukhadze & ors [2018] EWHC 2918 (Comm); which was considered by the Supreme Court earlier this year. The intersection with other litigation meant that bespoke confidentiality provisions were put in place for trial, with both confidential and non-confidential versions of the judgment handed down.

The key question for the Court was whether Mr Anisimov agreed orally that USD2 million would be deposited by him with Mr Jaffe, in relation to his defence of the Berezovsky claim, and that Mr Stein would be paid USD1 million for his first six months’ work on the claim, such that the USD2 million, which was subsequently paid by a company connected to Mr Anisimov to an offshore entity (Pumula), was held by Mr Jaffe on trust for Mr Stein.

The Court dismissed Mr Stein’s claim on the basis that none of the matters before it showed that Mr Anisimov intended at any material time to create a trust for the benefit of Mr Stein. A “more probable explanation” was that Mr Anisimov agreed to put up some funds up front, to cover Mr Stein’s proposed fee plus other expenses, but how and when they would be paid would be a matter for further discussion. In the absence of any trust being constituted, it followed that the claim for breach of trust must be dismissed.

The claim also raised an interesting and untested point in relation to section 19 of the Trustee Act 2000 (the appointment of nominees). Do such provisions fall to be considered in respect of trust formation, or only once a trust is formed? While the judge considered the answer to be the latter, in light of the finding on the facts, the point was not one which required determination and remains open for future consideration.

Lisa Lacob and Devon Airey were instructed by Jason Woodland and Holly Buick of Peters & Peters Solicitors LLP.

The full judgment can be read here.