BNP Paribas SA v Open Joint Stock Company Russian Machines & Anor [2011] EWHC 308 (Comm) (24 November 2011)

BNP Paribas SA v Open Joint Stock Company Russian Machines & Anor [2011] EWHC 308 (Comm) (24 November 2011)

The English court has jurisdiction to grant anti-suit relief against both defendants. The claims against the first defendant, a party to the arbitration agreement, clearly fall within the relevant jurisdictional gateways. The claims against the second defendant, though a non-party, are sufficiently connected as a necessary or proper party alleged to be acting in concert to frustrate the arbitration. Service on the first defendant was not valid under the repealed process agent clause, but the court grants retrospective validation and, in the alternative, permission for service out of the jurisdiction. Service on the second defendant is validated or, alternatively, permission for service...

Citation
[2011] EWHC 308 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: BNP Paribas S. A.; First Defendant: Open Joint Stock Company Russian Machines; Second Defendant: Joint Stock Asset Management Company Ingosstrakh-Investments
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Interlocutory Applications (anti Suit Injunction, Jurisdiction, Service) / Interlocutory Judgment on Jurisdiction, Service, and Interim Relief
Outcome
Jurisdiction upheld; service validated or permitted; interim anti-suit injunction granted.
Legal Topics
Anti Suit Injunctions, Jurisdiction Challenges, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Arbitration Agreements, Enforcement of Arbitration, Interim Relief, Necessary or Proper Party Gateway
Arbitration Civil Procedure Conflict of Laws Contract Law Anti Suit Injunctions Jurisdiction Challenges Service Out of Jurisdiction Arbitration Agreements +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BNP Paribas S. A.

Claimant

Open Joint Stock Company Russian Machines

First Defendant

Joint Stock Asset Management Company Ingosstrakh-Investments

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Interlocutory Applications (anti Suit Injunction, Jurisdiction, Service) / Interlocutory Judgment on Jurisdiction, Service, and Interim Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction over the defendants for anti-suit relief in support of arbitration
  2. 2 Whether service on the defendants was valid or should be retrospectively/prospectively validated
  3. 3 Whether the claims against the second defendant (a non-party to the arbitration agreement) fall within the jurisdictional gateways for service out of the jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The English court has jurisdiction to grant anti-suit relief against both defendants. The claims against the first defendant, a party to the arbitration agreement, clearly fall within the relevant jurisdictional gateways. The claims against the second defendant, though a non-party, are sufficiently connected as a necessary or proper party alleged to be acting in concert to frustrate the arbitration. Service on the first defendant was not valid under the repealed process agent clause, but the court grants retrospective validation and, in the alternative, permission for service out of the jurisdiction. Service on the second defendant is validated or, alternatively, permission for service...

Court Disposition

Jurisdiction upheld; service validated or permitted; interim anti-suit injunction granted.

Orders

  • Retrospective validation of service on the first defendant or, alternatively, permission for service out of the jurisdiction granted.
  • Service on the second defendant validated or, alternatively, permission for service out of the jurisdiction granted as a necessary or proper party.