Bank St Petersburg Ojsc & Anor v Arkhangelsky & Ors (Rev 1)

Bank St Petersburg Ojsc & Anor v Arkhangelsky & Ors (Rev 1)

The application of the Russian limitation period would cause undue hardship to the Arkhangelskys and OMG Ports due to their impecuniosity, the Bank's refusal to accept service, and the disproportionate consequences of being unable to pursue their claims, justifying disapplication under section 2(2) of the 1984 Act. The exclusive jurisdiction agreement required the substantive dispute to be resolved in England, and enforcement of Russian judgments abroad pending resolution was inconsistent with that agreement, justifying an interim anti-enforcement injunction.

Parties
Appellant/claimant/respondent/defendant: Bank St Petersburg OJSC; Appellant/claimant/respondent/defendant: Alexander Savelyev; Respondent/defendant/appellant/claimant/part 20 Claimant: Vitaly Arkhangelsky; Respondent/defendant/appellant/claimant: Julia Arkhangelskaya; Respondent/part 20 Claimant/appellant/claimant: Oslo Marine Group Ports LLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Three Interlocutory Appeals
Outcome
No order on first appeal; second appeal (Bank's appeal on limitation) dismissed; third appeal (Arkhangelskys' appeal on anti-enforcement injunction) allowed.
Legal Topics
Foreign Limitation Periods, Exclusive Jurisdiction Agreements, Anti Enforcement Injunctions, Service of Process, Impecuniosity and Access to Justice
Civil Procedure Private International Law Contract Law Foreign Limitation Periods Exclusive Jurisdiction Agreements Anti Enforcement Injunctions Service of Process Impecuniosity and Access to Justice

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bank St Petersburg OJSC

Appellant/claimant/respondent/defendant

Alexander Savelyev

Appellant/claimant/respondent/defendant

Vitaly Arkhangelsky

Respondent/defendant/appellant/claimant/part 20 Claimant

Julia Arkhangelskaya

Respondent/defendant/appellant/claimant

Oslo Marine Group Ports LLC

Respondent/part 20 Claimant/appellant/claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Three Interlocutory Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Russian limitation period should be disapplied under section 2(2) of the Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984 due to undue hardship
  2. 2 Whether the court should dispense with service of the Commercial Court claim form or retrospectively validate alternative service
  3. 3 Whether an anti-enforcement injunction should be granted to restrain enforcement of Russian judgments abroad contrary to an exclusive English jurisdiction agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The application of the Russian limitation period would cause undue hardship to the Arkhangelskys and OMG Ports due to their impecuniosity, the Bank's refusal to accept service, and the disproportionate consequences of being unable to pursue their claims, justifying disapplication under section 2(2) of the 1984 Act. The exclusive jurisdiction agreement required the substantive dispute to be resolved in England, and enforcement of Russian judgments abroad pending resolution was inconsistent with that agreement, justifying an interim anti-enforcement injunction.

Court Disposition

No order on first appeal; second appeal (Bank's appeal on limitation) dismissed; third appeal (Arkhangelskys' appeal on anti-enforcement injunction) allowed.

Orders

  • No order on the appeal against refusal to dispense with service of the Commercial Court claim form.
  • Dismissal of the Bank and Mr Savelyev's appeal against disapplication of the Russian limitation period under section 2(2) of the 1984 Act.