Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

This case is an extremely factually complex one and in this post we’ll therefore be covering the facts and the points of law in a rather selective fashion. The case of Gaydamak v Leviev concerns a dispute over a contract purportedly agreed in 2001 regarding the splitting of Mr Leviev’s and Mr Gaydamak’s business assets in Angola between them, and whether there was an enforceable Settlement Agreement reached at a later date (and what the terms of that agreement were). The High Court determined that a contract had been agreed and signed by both parties, that there was an enforceable Settlement Agreement in place relating to the dispute, and that General Kopelipa had not made false representations to Mr Gaydamak to entice him to sign the Settlement Agreement. Mr Gaydamak’s claim was therefore dismissed.

The facts in Gaydamak v Leviev

As stated above, this case is quite factually complex. We’ll therefore stick to dealing with an outline of the facts. Mr Gaydamak and Mr Leviev (“the Parties”) had, and have, substantial business interests in Angola. In 2001 the Parties agreed to split their respective Angolan businesses 50/50 between them. An agreement was drawn up as to this effect, allegedly signed, and handed to the Chief Rabbi of Russia for safe-keeping. Mr Leviev later stated that he never signed such an agreement and that the agreement handed to the Chief Rabbi was a manuscript agreement committing Mr Gaydamak to make regular charitable donations to Jewish communities.

The second issue in the case was the “drop hands” Settlement Agreement relating to litigation over the previous contract that was agreed by the Parties in 2011. Mr Gaydamak alleged that he was offered $500 million to compensate him for his losses, with $50 million to be paid up front. Mr Leviev stated that he never offered anything of the sort and that he had instructed General Kopelipa, attending on his behalf, that he would not pay any money. The issue therefore arose as to what instructions Mr Leviev had given, whether General Kopelipa had made a fraudulent representation, and, if so, whether General Kopelipa had actual or apparent authority to make such a representation.

The law relating to creating contractual agreements

As every law student knows, a contract is composed of four elements: offer, acceptance, consideration and intention. In order to avoid insulting the intelligence of our readers we will therefore deal only briefly with these points.

An offer is an indication by one person that they are prepared to deal with another person on certain terms. This is different from an “invitation to treat” (i.e. a tender) where negotiations are opened, offers are sought from a variety of sources, and the “best” offer selected for the contract.

Acceptance is, obviously, indicated when the other party consents to the terms offered. This is as opposed to a counter-offer, whether the other party amends the terms and submits them for the party’s deliberation. Acceptance of an offer must generally be communicated by words or action – silence is not to be deemed acceptance (Felthouse v Bindley).

Consideration has been described as the “price of a promise”. It can be absolutely minimal (hence the term “peppercorn rent”) but it must exist. It is essentially what party A is transferring to party B for the use of or ownership of the property.

The position on whether the parties to the contract intended to create legal relations depends on the circumstances in which the contract came into existence. If it is a commercial venture then the presumption is that there is an intention to create legal relations. If it is a “domestic” agreement then the presumption is that the agreement is not legally binding. The party seeking to enforce the agreement must then seek to persuade the court that there was such an intention.

The High Court’s decision in Gaydamak v Leviev

On the first issue – whether the partnership agreement had been signed – the High Court found that the agreement was signed in a meeting between the Parties in December 2001. The High Court relied on the evidence that had been put before it in deciding this, particularly on the statements of Mr Gaydamak and Mr Dagan as to the significance of the greeting “mazel u’bracha” (meaning “good fortune and blessing”) which was used on the day that the agreement was allegedly signed in December 2001. Further, the High Court preferred the evidence of Mr Gaydamak to that of Mr Leviev.

On the second issue – whether there was an enforceable Settlement Agreement – the High Court found that there was. The Parties had signed the 2011 agreement and acted in reliance on it. Of particular significance was the fact that Mr Gaydamak was provided with an Angolan diplomatic passport – something that he had been promised by General Kopelipa upon the signing of the Settlement Agreement. Further, Mr Gaydamak’s defence that there was not a date specified on the front of the 2011 Settlement Agreement (and that it was therefore not yet in force) was dismissed as relatively weak, seeing as Mr Gaydamak had signed and dated the Settlement Agreement in his own hand on 6 August 2011.

Finally, the High Court dismissed the contention that General Kopelipa had made representations of fact relating to payments outside of the Settlement Agreement but accepted that General Kopelipa had been Mr Leviev’s agent. However, General Kopelipa would not have been acting with actual or apparent authority if he had made such representations as the Settlement Agreement stated that Mr Leviev would not make such payments and the Settlement Agreement contained an entire agreement clause.

The High Court therefore dismissed the claim on the basis that there was an enforceable Settlement Agreement that covered the litigation.

Our specialist commercial solicitors’ thoughts on Gaydamak v Leviev

This is an interesting and, it has to be said, rather exotic case. What it demonstrates is that clear and precise notes of meetings should be taken and that agents, if instructed, should be provided with written instructions to clarify the limits of their authority. Further, it demonstrates that ambiguity in commercial relationships can be damaging and extremely costly.

If you have a commercial dispute then contact Redmans‘ commercial dispute resolution team.

Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

Our awards

Request a callback

    Your first name (required)

    Your last name (required)

    Your email (required)

    Your telephone number (required)

    Brief details of your enquiry


    4.80 Average

    369 Reviews

    Fidel A

    Redmans Solicitors recently helped me navigate a recent employment termination settlement agreement. Chris Hadrill is very professional and you will be in good hands with him. I score Redmans 4 out of 5 because things had to move fast and felt the team member assigned to my case wasn't very responsive at times. Having said that, I was very happy with the outcome and have no hesitation in recommending their services.

    Posted 7 hours ago

    Nigel A

    Chris Hadrill is hugely impressive - the right blend of assured calm and savvy professionalism. I've already recommended him to friends and family.

    Posted 21 hours ago

    Matt O

    I was hugely impressed with the ease of being able to work with Redmans Solicitors and their professional approach. Mel was really clear around the process, and costings required and I felt comfortable throughout. I would certainly recommend.

    Posted 22 hours ago

    Bryan G

    Great response, and also happy to assist

    Posted 22 hours ago

    David L

    I was made a settlement offer by my employer to terminate my emplyment early. Redmans helped me understand the offer, and ensured that it was fair for someone in my position. They made a very stressful situation much easier. Excellent service.

    Posted 1 day ago


    I can highly recommend Redmans. The service was professional and prompt and I would not hesitate to use them again. Thanks

    Posted 6 days ago


    Overall I am satisfied with the performance from Redmans. The reason I have given 4 stars is that I had quite a lot difficulty in contacting the representative which was initially nominated for me. However, when I contacted Chris instead, he was excellent over the phone and secured a great outcome in short order. I would recommend Redmans Solicitors.

    Posted 1 week ago


    Chris and Redmans were a great help. Effective and efficient, quick response from my first enquiry and then straightforward and attentive throughout with ultimately a positive outcome. I will use them again and recommend them.

    Posted 1 week ago

    Marie P

    Great service, quick responses, good advice and all in a no nonsense, no jargon manner. Would definitely recommend.

    Posted 1 week ago


    Rana was amazingly thorough and professional!

    Posted 1 week ago


    I am extremely happy with the legal advice I was provided with. My case was resolved to the best of my expectations. Thank you very much for your professional help.

    Posted 1 week ago

    Shahzad R

    Chris and his team were excellent. They provided sound advice and consultation that resulted in more cash than was offered. Would definitely recommend.

    Posted 1 week ago

    Sanjay B

    I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mel Chin, for all her support during my settlement process. Where she provided a professional service and was understanding. I would confidently recommend Redmans Solicitors to my friends and family. Thank you and wishing you all a Merry Christmas.

    Posted 4 weeks ago

    Paul O

    Excellent response time and communication during my dealings with Redmans

    Posted 1 month ago

    Gil T

    I don’t normally write reviews, but thought it was time on this occasion. Just wanted to say that I highly recommend Redmans - especially Rana Tandon, who helped me navigate around my employment contract. Rana was meticulous and thorough and all over my needs. Would I use Redmans again ? ..absolutely

    Posted 1 month ago

    Stephanie D

    Very thorough and professional service. I was very nervous about my employment case, as I had never dealt with anything like it before. However, the solicitors who handled my case made sure I understood everything. I was never kept in the dark and Redmans kept me constantly informed about what was going on with my case. I would definitely recommend Redmans Solicitors

    Posted 1 month ago

    Richard S

    Chris and Sacha were great throughout the entire process. Chris was very helpful once the initial discussions with my company began and before we agreed there was a case. Sacha was very responsive, patient and helpful throughout ensuring I felt I had the right information to make the best decision on next steps. A close friend and wife have both used Redmans in the past few years for unfair dismissals and the service continues to be first-class and I would strongly recommend them again. They definitely help reduce the anxiety that comes with uncertainty around new processes and situations. Thank you!

    Posted 1 month ago


    Very nice and patient went through the whole document with me.

    Posted 1 month ago

    Susan L

    Very helpful and led me through the redundancy process.

    Posted 1 month ago


    I was very impressed with the service that I received, and the speed in which it was handled. I would recommend them to a family member

    Posted 1 month ago


    Good service, but they could have been quicker in their responses to me. I also felt they could have made it clear at one crucial point that what I was proposing - and what I ultimately ended up doing - was counterproductive. (Had they made the rules around TOIL payments clear to me, this wouldn't have happened). Also, the amount I ended up paying was considerably higher than their original estimate. Still, satisfied with the service I received.

    Posted 1 month ago