A professional negligence trial against London law firm Payne Hicks Beach will not be split between breach and duty issues and causation and loss issues, a judge has ruled.
The firm is alleged to have acted negligently in divorce proceedings between Tatiana Soroka and her oligarch ex-husband Farkhad Akhmedov. Soroka was awarded a record £453m in the 2021 divorce.
Soroka alleges the firm was negligent in failing to advise her that she could and should take steps to enforce a financial remedy order, obtained against Akhmedov in December 2016, against the superyacht Luna (pictured) while it was docked in Miami in 2017. The yacht, once owned by Roman Abramovich, is worth around £150 million.
Payne Hicks Beach denies all allegations against it including breach, duty, causation and loss. It argues that Soroka did not seek the advice she says she should have been given.
Soroka originally sought to pursue her claim in a split trial, one dealing with breach and duty and the second on causation and loss. However Master Kaye, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, said if an ‘entire trial can be accommodated in late 2026…the advantages of a split trial in this case are significantly undermined’.
Read more
Considering costs, the judge said that was ‘no obvious substantial saving’ in a split trial unless Soroka loses the first trial ‘and a real risk of increased overall cost if she wins’.
In Tatiana Soroka v Payne Hicks Beach the judge said progressing ‘breach, duty, causation and loss together will provide the best opportunity of reaching a position where settlement discussions can take place’. She added: ‘It also seems to me to represent the right balance in terms of costs and benefit. It seems to me the reasonable and proportionate approach consistent with the overriding objective.’
Refusing the application for a split trial, the judge said: ‘A split trial will cause delay to both the eventual determination of the claim and when it might be possible for the parties to engage in any sensible form of ADR.
‘Inevitably that too will increase costs even if the full costs of a second trial are avoided. Progressing the full claim now including issues of causation and loss is more likely to lead to an earlier overall settlement.’
A single trial in late 2026, even if there were an appeal, ‘has to be preferrable’ to witnesses having to revisit events in 2017 in 2028 or 2029 for a second trial, the judge said.
‘It is not consistent with the overriding objective or good case management to allow the claimant’s application, and I refuse it.’
6 Readers' comments