Barclays Bank PLC v PJSC Sovcombank & Anor [2024] EWHC 834 (Comm) (26 March 2024)

Barclays Bank PLC v PJSC Sovcombank & Anor [2024] EWHC 834 (Comm) (26 March 2024)

Barclays is entitled to anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions because the Loan Agreement contains an exclusive English jurisdiction clause binding both Sovcombank and SMR, the Russian proceedings are in breach of that clause, clause 45.2(c) does not qualify the exclusive jurisdiction, and there is no strong reason (including delay or sanctions) to refuse relief. England is the natural forum, and service out and by alternative means is justified.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 834 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant / Applicant: Barclays Bank PLC; Defendant / Respondent: PJSC Sovcombank; Defendant / Respondent: LLC Sodeistvie Mezhdunarodnym Raschetam
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application (without Notice) / Interim Application for Anti Suit and Anti Enforcement Injunctions
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Anti Suit Injunctions, Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses, Sanctions Enforcement, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Assignment of Contractual Rights
Commercial Law Banking Law Conflict of Laws Anti Suit Injunctions Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses Sanctions Enforcement Service Out of Jurisdiction Assignment of Contractual Rights

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barclays Bank PLC

Claimant / Applicant

PJSC Sovcombank

Defendant / Respondent

LLC Sodeistvie Mezhdunarodnym Raschetam

Defendant / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application (without Notice) / Interim Application for Anti Suit and Anti Enforcement Injunctions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Barclays is entitled to anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions against Sovcombank and SMR to restrain Russian proceedings in breach of an exclusive English jurisdiction clause
  2. 2 Whether the exclusive jurisdiction clause is qualified by a service provision
  3. 3 Whether SMR as assignee is bound by the jurisdiction clause

Ratio Decidendi

Barclays is entitled to anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions because the Loan Agreement contains an exclusive English jurisdiction clause binding both Sovcombank and SMR, the Russian proceedings are in breach of that clause, clause 45.2(c) does not qualify the exclusive jurisdiction, and there is no strong reason (including delay or sanctions) to refuse relief. England is the natural forum, and service out and by alternative means is justified.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Anti-suit injunction restraining Sovcombank and SMR from pursuing Russian proceedings in breach of the exclusive jurisdiction clause
  • Anti-enforcement injunction granted