Akcine Bendrove Bankas Snoras v Antonov & Ors

Akcine Bendrove Bankas Snoras v Antonov & Ors

Obtaining the Lithuanian and Swiss asset restraint orders did not breach the undertaking because they were obtained independently under local law in support of separate Lithuanian proceedings, not as enforcement or duplication of the English freezing order; the undertaking is only engaged where the foreign relief depends on or derives from the English order.

Parties
Claimant/applicant: Akcinė Bendrovė Bankas Snoras; 1st Defendant/respondent: Vladimir Antonov; 2nd Defendant/respondent: Raimondas Baranauskas; Third Respondent: Portpin Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application (freezing Order Enforcement) / Ruling on Application for Declaration Regarding Breach of Undertaking
Outcome
Application allowed; declaration granted
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Worldwide Freezing Orders (wwfo), Enforcement of Undertakings, Cross Border Asset Restraint, Director Duties, Jurisdiction, Lis Alibi Pendens
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Insolvency Freezing Orders Worldwide Freezing Orders (wwfo) Enforcement of Undertakings Cross Border Asset Restraint Director Duties +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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Akcinė Bendrovė Bankas Snoras

Claimant/applicant

Vladimir Antonov

1st Defendant/respondent

Raimondas Baranauskas

2nd Defendant/respondent

Portpin Limited

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application (freezing Order Enforcement) / Ruling on Application for Declaration Regarding Breach of Undertaking

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether obtaining asset restraint orders in Lithuania and Switzerland constituted a breach of an undertaking not to enforce an English freezing order or seek similar orders abroad without court permission
  2. 2 Whether retrospective permission should be granted if there was a breach

Ratio Decidendi

Obtaining the Lithuanian and Swiss asset restraint orders did not breach the undertaking because they were obtained independently under local law in support of separate Lithuanian proceedings, not as enforcement or duplication of the English freezing order; the undertaking is only engaged where the foreign relief depends on or derives from the English order.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; declaration granted

Orders

  • Declaration that obtaining the Lithuanian and Swiss asset restraint orders did not breach the undertaking in the English freezing order.