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

Share →

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

Contact us

Please feel free to discuss your own position and concerns. Contact your nearest office on:

T: 020 3397 3603
E: enquiries@redmans.co.uk
W: www.redmans.co.uk

Testimonials

4.76 Average

204 Reviews

Anonymous

Excellent advice and customer service.

Posted 1 month ago

Aneet G

I would definitely recommend Redmans. Very impressed with service provided. They were extremely proactive in handling my case which made things easier for me. Provided sound advice and resolution. Special credit for this goes to Chris who dealt with my case with great determination and consideration.

Posted 1 month ago

Fern M

Very efficient and friendly

Posted 1 month ago

Neville S

A professional and friendly service, which I would highly recommend.

Posted 1 month ago

Daniel T

Extremely helpful and made a bad situation much more manageable. Where other solicitors seemed disinterested in my situation Redmans immediately made me feel like it was a team effort to achieve a more favourable outcome

Posted 1 month ago

Paul T

Excellent, quick and informative. Chris was a real star and gave me confidence during the uncertainty if a redundancy settlement.

Posted 1 month ago

Marina E

Felt in very capable hands was listened to and given excellent advice. Would not hesitate to recomend and use again if needed.

Posted 1 month ago

Rosa B

Fabulous service all round.

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

Redmans were quick to respond to my enquiry and dealt with my case professionally and personably. I received sound advice and was put at ease by Chris Hadrill, Partner.

Posted 1 month ago

Alkhas K

Excellent service.

Posted 1 month ago

Mathias G

Contacted them regarding my end of employment agreement. Chris Hadrill dealt with it and was done and handed back to employer same day more than happy with there service.

Posted 2 months ago

Mark W

Most professional from start to finish offering very a personal service. Most impressive and quick when dealing with the matters in hand.

Posted 3 months ago

Anonymous

Posted 3 months ago

submit

I am very glad I came across Redmans Solicitors. Fantastic service!

Posted 3 months ago

Anonymous

Fantastic communication, always happy to answer queries, highly recommended.

Posted 3 months ago

Wavenie B

They were very straight to the point, friendly and understanding people. I felt they had my best interest. They were easy to get hold of, replies were almost instant. 5/5 for customer service

Posted 3 months ago

Christina P

Caroline was fantastic to work with - extremely knowledgeable, supportive, thorough and honest. I definitely recommend Redmans!

Posted 3 months ago

Anonymous

Very well done and fast support. Professional and reliable. Highly recommended!

Posted 3 months ago

Helene L

They were very knowledgable in the respected area in terms of change in law/regulations that is crucial for the clients who are seeking for legal arvice.

Posted 3 months ago

Sara R

Very helpful and wonderful advice

Posted 3 months ago

Marie D

very good service all digitalised

Posted 3 months ago