Bank St Petersburg & Anor v Arkhangelsky & Anor

Bank St Petersburg & Anor v Arkhangelsky & Anor

The application of the Russian limitation period would cause undue hardship in the particular circumstances, justifying permission for the Defendants to bring a counterclaim; permission to appeal was refused as the decision was discretionary and the Court of Appeal is better placed to address it. Costs orders were made individually for each application, balancing fairness and responsibility.

Parties
Applicant/claimant: Bank St Petersburg; Applicant/claimant: Alexander Savelyev; Respondent/defendant: Vitaly Arkhangelsky; Respondent/defendant: Julia Arkhangelskaya
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil / Supplemental Judgment Post Main Judgment, Addressing Applications for Permission to Appeal and Costs
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused for both Claimants and Defendants; Defendants permitted to bring counterclaim subject to exceptions; costs orders made as specified.
Legal Topics
Foreign Limitation Periods, Counterclaims, Anti Suit Injunctions, Freezing Orders, Costs Orders, Permission to Appeal
Civil Procedure Private International Law Foreign Limitation Periods Counterclaims Anti Suit Injunctions Freezing Orders Costs Orders Permission to Appeal

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bank St Petersburg

Applicant/claimant

Alexander Savelyev

Applicant/claimant

Vitaly Arkhangelsky

Respondent/defendant

Julia Arkhangelskaya

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Supplemental Judgment Post Main Judgment, Addressing Applications for Permission to Appeal and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal should be granted regarding the exercise of jurisdiction under section 2(2) of the Foreign Limitation Periods Act (FLPA)
  2. 2 Whether the Russian limitation period causes undue hardship justifying disapplication
  3. 3 Whether the Claimants should be restrained from enforcing Russian judgments during the pendency of proceedings and freezing order

Ratio Decidendi

The application of the Russian limitation period would cause undue hardship in the particular circumstances, justifying permission for the Defendants to bring a counterclaim; permission to appeal was refused as the decision was discretionary and the Court of Appeal is better placed to address it. Costs orders were made individually for each application, balancing fairness and responsibility.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused for both Claimants and Defendants; Defendants permitted to bring counterclaim subject to exceptions; costs orders made as specified.

Orders

  • Defendants permitted to bring counterclaim subject to exceptions in main judgment.
  • Permission to appeal refused for Claimants regarding section 2(2) FLPA decision.