Georgian businessman Zaza Okuashvili loses UK court battle against Bidzina Ivanishvili - claims dismissed as fabricated

The High Court of England and Wales delivered a decisive ruling, dismissing a high-profile case brought by the Georgian opposition-leaning businessman Zaza Okuashvili against Bidzina Ivanishvili, the founder of the Georgian Dream party.

The legal case, titled Okuashvili & Ors v Ivanishvili & Ors, BL-2023-000, encompassed a wide range of allegations, including a dispute over a Georgian patent, claims of corporate coercion, and alleged political interference. The plaintiffs based their claims on breach of contract, tort liability, and unjust enrichment.

Defendants in the case included Bidzina Ivanishvili, the company Tbilisi Tobacco, and businessman Vano Chkhartishvili.

In its ruling, the Court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments, deeming their claims to be based on insufficient and, in some instances, falsified evidence. The court also identified serious procedural flaws, particularly concerning the proper filing of the claim and the legal standards necessary to establish jurisdiction in the UK.

The Court emphasised that the main claims made by the plaintiffs - threats, illegal conspiracy and dishonest assistance - lacked any serious legal basis and were often fabricated. The Court called these allegations outdated and fundamentally false.

The Court also dismissed the plaintiffs' claims of breach of fiduciary duty and aiding such a breach, stating that no fiduciary relationship existed between the involved parties.

A key part of the plaintiffs’ argument rested on a Georgian patent, which had already been revoked in Georgia. The Court ruled this line of reasoning invalid, accepting the argument that Georgian courts had previously and lawfully annulled the patent, thus eliminating the basis for any related legal claims.

With regard to the unjust enrichment claims, which alleged that profits were gained through the now-revoked patent, the plaintiffs failed to establish a valid legal foundation. Consequently, the Court deemed the exercise of jurisdiction in England and Wales over this matter to be inadmissible.

The Court’s decision, delivered on April 7, 2025, is final and not subject to appeal.