Oleg Deripaska launches new High Court claim against former business partner Vladimir Chernukhin in the latest chapter of a long-running oligarch feud
Sanctioned Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska has filed a new claim in the High Court in London against Vladimir Chernukhin, his former business partner, continuing a protracted and commercially significant legal feud between the two men. The proceedings represent the latest episode in litigation that has run across multiple courts and jurisdictions. Chernukhin is himself a former Russian deputy finance minister who relocated to the UK and has previously prevailed against Deripaska in High Court proceedings. Deripaska, who faces UK and EU sanctions arising from his connections to the Russian state, has faced significant procedural challenges in pursuing English litigation, with questions about his ability to access the UK court system and fund litigation under the sanctions framework directly at issue in past proceedings. The fact that a new claim has now been filed indicates that Deripaska has obtained the necessary sanctions licences or legal permissions to proceed. The substance of the new claim has not been disclosed in available sources, but the litigation sits within a broader pattern of post-Soviet business disputes — typically involving allegations of fraud, breach of shareholder agreements, or asset misappropriation — that have made the English Commercial Court one of the primary global forums for resolving disputes between Russian high-net-worth individuals and former business partners.
Why this matters
The English Commercial Court's continued role as the venue of choice for high-stakes Russian oligarch litigation — notwithstanding the UK's expansive post-2022 sanctions regime — reflects both the court's global reputation and the practical legal question of when and how sanctioned individuals can access justice in English proceedings. The UK sanctions regime (administered by the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation, OFSI) requires litigation funding licences for sanctioned parties, creating a distinct regulatory layer over any dispute involving individuals on the UK Consolidated List. For commercial disputes practices, this case is a reminder that the English courts remain an active forum for complex, high-value international commercial litigation even in a geopolitically fraught environment. The broader trend is the consolidation of oligarch wealth disputes in London following the post-Yukos generation of cases, and the legal architecture of those disputes — jurisdiction clauses, governing law, and enforcement of judgments — remains heavily English-law dependent.
On the Ground
A trainee on this matter would be assisting with disclosure review and categorisation of potentially vast documentary records, preparing chronologies of the parties' commercial relationship and prior litigation history, and coordinating with sanctions counsel on OFSI licence requirements. Trial bundle pagination and court filing and service obligations would also be relevant as proceedings progress.
Interview prep
Soundbite
Sanctioned oligarchs litigating in London require OFSI licences — adding a regulatory dimension to every procedural step.
Question you might get
“How does the UK sanctions regime affect a sanctioned individual's ability to bring or defend litigation in English courts, and what steps would you take to advise a client in that position?”
Full answer
Deripaska has filed a new High Court claim against Chernukhin, adding another chapter to one of English commercial litigation's longest-running oligarch disputes. The legally distinctive feature of this filing is that Deripaska is subject to UK sanctions, which means even accessing the courts — paying lawyers, funding proceedings — requires a specific licence from OFSI, the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation. That compliance layer runs alongside the substantive dispute and creates advisory work for both the litigators and sanctions specialists at any firm involved. The English Commercial Court remains the dominant global venue for this category of dispute precisely because of its procedural robustness, neutral judiciary, and the enforceability of its judgments. The broader trend is that post-Soviet commercial disputes have generated a sustained litigation pipeline in London that is unlikely to diminish regardless of geopolitical conditions.
Sources
My notes
saved