East-West United Bank v Gusinski: High Court dismisses conspiracy claims against businessman and law firm

The High Court has dismissed every claim brought by a Luxembourg bank against a Russian businessman, a London law firm and one of its solicitors, finding no assignment of funds and no intention to injure.

In East-West United Bank SA v Gusinski & Ors [2026] EWHC 2550 (BP), Mr Justice Rajah heard claims against Vladimir Gusinski, who had been debarred from defending, GSC Solicitors LLP and solicitor Barry Samuels. The dispute arose from a 2013 loan facility to a media group company, guaranteed by other group companies. After a default, the bank won an arbitration award for about US$9.6 million but was not paid. A judgment sum of about US$5.2 million, obtained by the group's holding company, was held in GSC's client account, and around US$4.75 million later went to the company's liquidators.

No proprietary interest

The bank said that, in seeking a staged payment award, the group had offered US$4.75 million from that sum and so given it an equitable assignment or constructive trust. The judge held that no final and settled intention to assign could be objectively ascertained. The offer was integral to a proposed award that the tribunal never made, and nobody at the time, including the tribunal, treated the bank as having acquired an interest. A constructive trust had not been pleaded independently and could not arise without an assignment. The related claims for breach of trust, fiduciary duty, knowing receipt and dishonest assistance failed with it.

Conspiracy and intention

Unlawful means conspiracy required an actual intention to injure, or reckless indifference. The judge found the evidence pointed to Mr Gusinski trying to preserve the group and buy time to repay, not to avoid repayment. The group had already repaid US$26 million of capital and US$6.4 million of interest, while the bank's own documents showed a strategy of "maximum pressure". The circular bankruptcies of two guarantors, the Swiss moratorium and the staged payment application were all consistent with that aim. The moratorium was a lawful process supervised by an independent trustee and the Swiss court.

A solicitor or barrister who carries out an engagement by lawful means does not conspire with the client, the judge said, because there is no combination to injure and no requisite intention. The bank had not shown that the arbitration defence and cross-claim, signed by leading and junior counsel, was unarguable, and reliance on counsel was not recklessness. Mr Samuels was simply doing his job and had acted with appropriate professionalism. The claim for procuring breach of contract also failed, because the bank had not shown the companies could pay but were induced not to.

Conduct of the trial

Although Mr Gusinski was debarred, the bank still had to prove its case, and a statement of truth on a statement of case is not evidence at trial. The judge criticised the bank for offering almost no oral argument against him and handing up a 13-page appendix of documents never put before the court. A trial, he said, is "the first and the last night of the show", and he would not decide a case on paper by reading unaired documents afterwards. He also disregarded large parts of the bank's chief legal officer's witness statement, which breached Practice Direction 57AC by offering commentary and submissions rather than personal knowledge.

The bank's claims were dismissed against all defendants.