BIDZINA IVANISHVILI & 4 Ors v CREDIT SUISSE TRUST LIMITED
Key facts
| Court | Singapore International Commercial Court |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Patricia Bergin |
| Charges / claim | Civil Procedure |
| Counsel | Allen & Gledhill LLP, Drew & Napier LLC, Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP, Afzal Ali, Cavinder Bull, Disa Sim, Fiona Chew Yan Bei, Gan Yun Han Rebecca, Gerald Paul Seah Yong Sing, Justin William Jeremiah, Kelly Tseng Ai Lin, Kenneth Lim Tao Chung, Lee Eng Beng, Liang Fang Ling Elisabeth, Mak Sushan Melissa, Tan Yuan Kheng, Torsten Cheong, Wong Pei Ting, Woo Shu Yan, Yeow Yuet Cheong |
Source: [2023] SGHC(I) 14, Singapore International Commercial Court, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (20)
Case Significance
Ivanishvili, Bidzina and others v Credit Suisse Trust Ltd [2023] SGHC(I) 14 is a reserved judgment of Patricia Bergin IJ in the Singapore International Commercial Court, delivered on 19 September 2023 in Suit No 4 of 2021. The five plaintiffs — Bidzina Ivanishvili, Ekaterine Khvedelidze, Tsotne Ivanishvili (a minor), Gvantsa Ivanishvili and Bera Ivanishvili — and the defendant Credit Suisse Trust Limited returned for the finalisation of orders consequent on the merits judgment delivered on 26 May 2023 ([2023] SGHC(I) 9). The judgment addresses three main issues: the quantification of the amount payable under Model 1B given the finding that the defendant's breach occurred on 30 March 2008 rather than 31 December 2007, the costs of the proceedings, and whether a declaration should be made that the Deed of Amendment and Restatement is void and/or unenforceable.
What was Ivanishvili v Credit Suisse Trust Ltd [2023] SGHC(I) 14 about?
It was the finalisation of orders before Patricia Bergin IJ in the Singapore International Commercial Court, decided on 19 September 2023, following the 26 May 2023 merits judgment in the Ivanishvili family's trust suit against Credit Suisse Trust Limited.
What issues did the court address in [2023] SGHC(I) 14?
The court dealt with three issues: quantifying the amount payable under Model 1B from the breach date of 30 March 2008, the costs of the proceedings, and whether to declare the Deed of Amendment and Restatement void and/or unenforceable.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (5)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments on the same subject, most closely matched first.
Referenced in
Statutes interpreted in this judgment
Legal concepts & references
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2023] SGHC(I) 14)