VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp & Ors [2011] EWHC 3107 (Ch) (29 November 2011)

VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp & Ors [2011] EWHC 3107 (Ch) (29 November 2011)

The court found that VTB had not established a sufficient basis for piercing the corporate veil to impose contractual liability on MarCap BVI, MarCap Moscow, and Mr Malofeev, and that the English court was not the clearly appropriate forum for the dispute. Permission to serve out was set aside, the amendment to add contractual claims was refused, and the worldwide freezing order was discharged.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 3107 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: VTB Capital PLC; First Defendant: Nutritek International Corp; Second Defendant: Marshall Capital Holdings Limited; Third Defendant: Marshall Capital LLC; Fourth Defendant: Konstantin Malofeev
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Commercial Fraud Claim / Interlocutory Applications: Permission to Serve Out, Amendment of Claim, Continuation/discharge of Worldwide Freezing Order
Outcome
Permission to serve out set aside; amendment refused; worldwide freezing order discharged.
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Piercing the Corporate Veil, Jurisdiction, Worldwide Freezing Order, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Conspiracy, Contractual Liability
Commercial Law Fraud Conflict of Laws Civil Procedure Fraudulent Misrepresentation Piercing the Corporate Veil Jurisdiction Worldwide Freezing Order +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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

VTB Capital PLC

Claimant

Nutritek International Corp

First Defendant

Marshall Capital Holdings Limited

Second Defendant

Marshall Capital LLC

Third Defendant

Konstantin Malofeev

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Fraud Claim / Interlocutory Applications: Permission to Serve Out, Amendment of Claim, Continuation/discharge of Worldwide Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction over foreign defendants
  2. 2 Whether the corporate veil can be pierced to impose contractual liability
  3. 3 Whether fraudulent misrepresentations induced the claimant to enter into the Facility Agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that VTB had not established a sufficient basis for piercing the corporate veil to impose contractual liability on MarCap BVI, MarCap Moscow, and Mr Malofeev, and that the English court was not the clearly appropriate forum for the dispute. Permission to serve out was set aside, the amendment to add contractual claims was refused, and the worldwide freezing order was discharged.

Court Disposition

Permission to serve out set aside; amendment refused; worldwide freezing order discharged.

Orders

  • Permission to serve out of jurisdiction on defendants set aside.
  • Application to amend Particulars of Claim refused.