J.P. Morgan Securities Plc & Ors v VTB Bank PJSC

J.P. Morgan Securities Plc & Ors v VTB Bank PJSC

The appeal was dismissed because the Judge was correct to find that all JPMorgan entities (except JPM Russia, which did not seek to enforce the arbitration clause) were entitled to invoke the LCIA arbitration clauses, and that the Russian proceedings, including those against JPM Russia, were vexatious and oppressive attempts to circumvent English law, arbitration agreements, and the UK sanctions regime. The English court had a sufficient interest to grant anti-suit injunctions, and comity did not preclude such relief.

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
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Final Orders Granting Anti Suit Injunctions
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Anti Suit Injunctions, Arbitration Agreements, Sanctions Enforcement, Vexatious and Oppressive Proceedings, Comity
Commercial Law Arbitration Conflict of Laws Anti Suit Injunctions Arbitration Agreements Sanctions Enforcement Vexatious and Oppressive Proceedings Comity

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 10 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

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Final Orders Granting Anti Suit Injunctions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court may grant anti-suit injunctions to restrain foreign proceedings as vexatious and oppressive where arbitration agreements exist and claims are brought in circumvention thereof, including against affiliates not party to the main contracts;
  2. 2 Whether claims against a Russian affiliate (JPM Russia) not party to the arbitration agreements can be restrained as vexatious and oppressive;
  3. 3 Whether the principles of comity preclude the grant of anti-suit injunctions in these circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the Judge was correct to find that all JPMorgan entities (except JPM Russia, which did not seek to enforce the arbitration clause) were entitled to invoke the LCIA arbitration clauses, and that the Russian proceedings, including those against JPM Russia, were vexatious and oppressive attempts to circumvent English law, arbitration agreements, and the UK sanctions regime. The English court had a sufficient interest to grant anti-suit injunctions, and comity did not preclude such relief.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed;
  • Final anti-suit injunctions and declaratory relief granted by the High Court affirmed;