Revolut Lawsuit for Closure of Ildar Uzbekov, Late Russian Oligarch’s Son-in-Law’s Account

The High Court in London heard arguments from the son-in-law of a deceased Russian oligarch who is pursuing legal action against fintech Revolut for “unlawfully” terminating his account, sparking controversy over the Russian oligarch’s son-in-law’s closing account.

Ildar Uzbekov -v- Revolut Limited

British national Ildar Uzbekov, who was born in Kazakhstan, is suing the business for breach of contract after it closed its account in April 2020 and withdrew £11,000 in payments—all purportedly without cause.

According to a Press Association report, he alleges that the closure was caused by “factual mistakes made by Revolut, a coordinated media campaign against him, and Revolut’s approach to these issues.” Mr. Justice Chamberlain was informed of this.

The late mining magnate Alexander Shchukin’s son-in-law, Uzbekov, told the court that he was able to retrieve the £11,000 and that he is not requesting damages.
Uzbekov’s attorney, Patrick Green KC, stated in written submissions that his client aimed to “vindicate his reputation in that regard, by seeking what amounts to a correction of the factual record as well as a finding regarding Revolut’s breach of contract.”

Revolut was accused by Green of “stonewalling” Uzbekov following the account’s freezing, which caused him “significant distress and inconvenience.”

The decision : Ildar Uzbekov -v- Revolut Limited

In granting Revolut’s application and striking out the Claim, Mr Justice Chamberlain found:

1 The rationale of Jameel and the need to protect parties from disproportionately costly and time-consuming litigation and to prevent an unfair allocation of the court’s resources, applies to more than just libel claims.

2 There was no real prospect the Court would grant declaratory relief, because:

i) Mr U’s relationship with Revolut had ended with no foreseeable prospect of it resuming. A declaration would be entirely backward looking.

ii) Neither an award of damages nor a declaration would establish the falsity of the underlying money laundering allegations nor vindicate Mr U’s reputation.

iii) The relief sought would not serve an objectively useful purpose; it would not bind a third party nor have any wider applicability to other banks.

iv) The Court should be cautious entertaining proceedings for vindicatory purposes which would circumvent existing safeguards for defendants to defamation claims (e.g., the one-year limitation period and need to show serious harm to reputation).

v) Declaratory relief was not in the public interest. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is better placed to consider systematic issues, as it has already done so through its “UK Payment Accounts: access and closures” report. Mr U could have also pursued a complaint through the Financial Ombudsman Service.

3 In noting that Mr U had already incurred costs of £147,000 and trial was listed for several days, Mr Justice Chamberlain held that, even if relief in the form sought was granted, the costs and use of the court’s resources would be disproportionate to the marginal objective benefit relief would confer to the claimant. “The game is not worth the candle”.

Revolut has previously referred to Uzbekov’s claims as “unmeritorious,” and the company is attempting to have the case dismissed for procedural abuse.

The company’s attorney, Tony Singla KC, stated in court that the claimant’s repeated bank account closures in the UK seem to be the driving force behind the lawsuit.

According to Singla’s written submissions, Uzbekov’s claim was “completely different” from what is meant by “debunking,” which is defined as “a situation in which a customer’s right to free speech has been restricted, such as when it comes to expressing political opinions, by closing their retail bank account.”

Revolut thought that maintaining Uzbekov’s account “may damage its reputation and goodwill” in light of financial investigators’ suspicions that he may have been involved in money laundering, Singla continued.

“Mr. Uzbekov expresses concern that the termination of his account is associated with prejudice against individuals who are Russian in origin. “This is an unfounded recommendation,” Singla informed the judge.

It is anticipated that the hearing will end today, and a decision will be made later.

Summary

• British national Ildar Uzbekov, son-in-law of Russian oligarch Alexander Shchukin, is suing Revolut for breach of contract after the company terminated his account in April 2020.
• Uzbekov alleges the closure was due to “factual mistakes made by Revolut, a coordinated media campaign against him, and Revolut’s approach to these issues.”
• Uzbekov’s attorney, Patrick Green KC, aims to “vindicate his reputation” by seeking a correction of the factual record and a finding regarding Revolut’s breach of contract.
• Revolut has previously referred to Uzbekov’s claims as “unmeritorious,” and the company is attempting to dismiss the case for procedural abuse.
• Revolut’s attorney, Tony Singla KC, argues that Uzbekov’s repeated bank account closures in the UK are the driving force behind the lawsuit.