JP Morgan Securities Plc & Ors v VTB Bank PJSC [2026] EWCA Civ 589 (12 May 2026)

JP Morgan Securities Plc & Ors v VTB Bank PJSC [2026] EWCA Civ 589 (12 May 2026)

The English court has a sufficient interest to grant anti-suit injunctions restraining VTB from pursuing Russian proceedings against JPMorgan entities, including affiliates, because the Russian claims are attempts to circumvent English law arbitration agreements and the UK sanctions regime, are vexatious and oppressive, and undermine the contractual dispute resolution framework. Affiliates are entitled to invoke the arbitration clause under the 2017 Terms, and the judge correctly exercised discretion to grant relief.

Citation
[2026] EWCA Civ 589
Parties
Claimant/respondent: J. P. Morgan Securities PLC; Claimant/respondent: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A., London Branch; Claimant/respondent: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A.; Claimant/respondent: CB JP Morgan Bank International LLC; Claimant/respondent: JPMorgan Chase & Co; Claimant/respondent: J. P. Morgan Capital Holdings Limited; Claimant/respondent: J. P. Morgan Limited; Claimant/respondent: J. P. Morgan International Finance Limited; Claimant/respondent: J. P. Morgan Emerging Europe, Middle East and Africa Securities PLC; Defendant/appellant: VTB Bank PJSC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 May 2026
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (commercial Court)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Anti Suit Injunctions, Arbitration Agreements, Vexatious and Oppressive Proceedings, Sanctions Enforcement, Jurisdiction, Comity, Corporate Group Liability
Commercial Law Arbitration Conflict of Laws Sanctions Anti Suit Injunctions Arbitration Agreements Vexatious and Oppressive Proceedings Sanctions Enforcement +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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J. P. Morgan Securities PLC

Claimant/respondent

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A., London Branch

Claimant/respondent

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A.

Claimant/respondent

CB JP Morgan Bank International LLC

Claimant/respondent

JPMorgan Chase & Co

Claimant/respondent

J. P. Morgan Capital Holdings Limited

Claimant/respondent

J. P. Morgan Limited

Claimant/respondent

J. P. Morgan International Finance Limited

Claimant/respondent

J. P. Morgan Emerging Europe, Middle East and Africa Securities PLC

Claimant/respondent

VTB Bank PJSC

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (commercial Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether anti-suit injunctions should be granted to restrain foreign proceedings alleged to be vexatious and oppressive
  2. 2 Whether affiliates of contracting parties can invoke arbitration clauses under English law
  3. 3 Whether claims in Russia against non-contracting affiliates circumvent English arbitration agreements and sanctions

Ratio Decidendi

The English court has a sufficient interest to grant anti-suit injunctions restraining VTB from pursuing Russian proceedings against JPMorgan entities, including affiliates, because the Russian claims are attempts to circumvent English law arbitration agreements and the UK sanctions regime, are vexatious and oppressive, and undermine the contractual dispute resolution framework. Affiliates are entitled to invoke the arbitration clause under the 2017 Terms, and the judge correctly exercised discretion to grant relief.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Final anti-suit injunctions upheld restraining VTB from pursuing or commencing Russian proceedings against JPMorgan entities, including affiliates and JPM Russia
  • Declarations that the arbitration agreements are valid and binding on VTB and governed by English law