Bank St Petersburg & Anor v Savelyev & Anor [2013] EWHC 3529 (Ch) (14 November 2013)

Bank St Petersburg & Anor v Savelyev & Anor [2013] EWHC 3529 (Ch) (14 November 2013)

The defendants failed to establish a sufficient causal link or evidential basis for the alleged losses to justify fortification of the cross-undertaking. The exclusive jurisdiction agreement, properly construed, did not preclude the claimants from enforcing Russian judgments abroad, and the court declined to grant an anti-suit injunction as a matter of discretion, considering the background and ongoing foreign proceedings. Permission to bring a counterclaim by the defendants was granted only to the extent not time-barred under Russian law, with joinder of additional parties refused where limitation or necessity requirements were not met.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 3529 (Ch)
Parties
Applicant/claimant: Bank St Petersburg; Applicant/claimant: Alexander Savelyev; Respondent/defendant: Vitaly Arkhangelsky; Respondent/defendant: Julia Arkhangelskaya
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Applications in Civil Proceedings (chancery Division) / Ruling on Applications for Permission to Counterclaim, Fortification of Cross Undertaking, and Anti Suit Injunction
Outcome
Applications for fortification and anti-suit injunction dismissed; permission to counterclaim granted in part, subject to limitation and procedural requirements; joinder of additional parties refused where time-barred or unnecessary.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Cross Undertakings in Damages, Anti Suit Injunctions, Jurisdiction Agreements, Limitation Periods, Counterclaims, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
Civil Procedure Private International Law Contract Law Freezing Injunctions Cross Undertakings in Damages Anti Suit Injunctions Jurisdiction Agreements Limitation Periods +2 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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bank St Petersburg

Applicant/claimant

Alexander Savelyev

Applicant/claimant

Vitaly Arkhangelsky

Respondent/defendant

Julia Arkhangelskaya

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Applications in Civil Proceedings (chancery Division) / Ruling on Applications for Permission to Counterclaim, Fortification of Cross Undertaking, and Anti Suit Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants are entitled to fortification of the claimants' cross-undertaking in damages for losses allegedly caused by a freezing order
  2. 2 Whether a worldwide anti-suit injunction should be granted to restrain the claimants from enforcing Russian judgments abroad
  3. 3 Whether the defendants should be permitted to bring a counterclaim and join additional parties, considering limitation and procedural rules

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants failed to establish a sufficient causal link or evidential basis for the alleged losses to justify fortification of the cross-undertaking. The exclusive jurisdiction agreement, properly construed, did not preclude the claimants from enforcing Russian judgments abroad, and the court declined to grant an anti-suit injunction as a matter of discretion, considering the background and ongoing foreign proceedings. Permission to bring a counterclaim by the defendants was granted only to the extent not time-barred under Russian law, with joinder of additional parties refused where limitation or necessity requirements were not met.

Court Disposition

Applications for fortification and anti-suit injunction dismissed; permission to counterclaim granted in part, subject to limitation and procedural requirements; joinder of additional parties refused where time-barred or unnecessary.

Orders

  • Application for fortification of cross-undertaking dismissed.
  • Application for worldwide anti-suit injunction dismissed.