PJSC Vseukrainskyi Aktsionernyi Bank v Maksimov & Ors [2013] EWHC 3203 (Comm) (16 August 2013)

PJSC Vseukrainskyi Aktsionernyi Bank v Maksimov & Ors [2013] EWHC 3203 (Comm) (16 August 2013)

Carlsbad's application to discharge the freezing injunction fails because (1) the issue of ownership/control was already determined to the good arguable case standard and Carlsbad is barred by privity of interest/abuse of process from re-arguing it; (2) the English court has jurisdiction to grant and serve the injunction out of the jurisdiction under CPR 62.5(1)(b) and s.44 Arbitration Act 1996; (3) there is a good arguable case that Carlsbad's assets are amenable to enforcement; (4) it is just and convenient to maintain the injunction; and (5) although there was regrettable non-disclosure by the Bank, it was not material so as to justify setting aside the injunction.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 3203 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: PJSC Vseukrainskyi Aktsionernyi Bank; Defendants: Sergey Maksimov and others; 27th Defendant / Applicant: Carlsbad Enterprises Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application (freezing Injunction, Discharge) / Application to Discharge Worldwide Freezing Injunction
Outcome
Application to discharge freezing injunction dismissed
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Jurisdiction, Arbitration Act 1996 S.44, Chabra Jurisdiction, Abuse of Process, Non Disclosure, Enforcement of Arbitral Awards
Civil Procedure Arbitration Commercial Law Freezing Injunctions Jurisdiction Arbitration Act 1996 S.44 Chabra Jurisdiction Abuse of Process +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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PJSC Vseukrainskyi Aktsionernyi Bank

Claimant

Sergey Maksimov and others

Defendants

Carlsbad Enterprises Limited

27th Defendant / Applicant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application (freezing Injunction, Discharge) / Application to Discharge Worldwide Freezing Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Carlsbad Enterprises Limited is owned/controlled by Mr Maksimov for Chabra relief
  2. 2 Whether the English court has jurisdiction to grant and serve a freezing injunction out of the jurisdiction on a non-party to the arbitration agreement
  3. 3 Whether Carlsbad's assets are amenable to enforcement in support of the arbitration

Ratio Decidendi

Carlsbad's application to discharge the freezing injunction fails because (1) the issue of ownership/control was already determined to the good arguable case standard and Carlsbad is barred by privity of interest/abuse of process from re-arguing it; (2) the English court has jurisdiction to grant and serve the injunction out of the jurisdiction under CPR 62.5(1)(b) and s.44 Arbitration Act 1996; (3) there is a good arguable case that Carlsbad's assets are amenable to enforcement; (4) it is just and convenient to maintain the injunction; and (5) although there was regrettable non-disclosure by the Bank, it was not material so as to justify setting aside the injunction.

Court Disposition

Application to discharge freezing injunction dismissed

Orders

  • Freezing injunction against Carlsbad Enterprises Limited to continue
  • No discharge of Field J's order of 2 May 2013