JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & Ors [2012] EWHC 783 (Comm) (16 March 2012)

JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & Ors [2012] EWHC 783 (Comm) (16 March 2012)

Chrysopa admitted default on interest payments under the loan agreement, satisfying CPR 25.7(1)(a). Alternatively, the claimant would obtain judgment for a substantial sum under one or more heads of claim, satisfying CPR 25.7(1)(c). The court is satisfied that an interim payment of US$65 million is appropriate.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 783 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant/applicant: JSC BTA Bank; First Defendant: Mukhtar Ablyazov; Second Defendant: Ildar Khazhaev; Third Defendant: Anton Rybalkin; Fourth Defendant/respondent: Chrysopa Holding BV; Fifth Defendant: Usarel Investments Limited; Sixth Defendant: Lux Investing Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim for Interim Payment / Interim Application for Payment Under CPR 25.7
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Interim Payments, Loan Agreements, Misappropriation of Funds, Admissions of Liability, Striking Out of Defence
Commercial Law Banking Law Civil Procedure Interim Payments Loan Agreements Misappropriation of Funds Admissions of Liability Striking Out of Defence

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JSC BTA Bank

Claimant/applicant

Mukhtar Ablyazov

First Defendant

Ildar Khazhaev

Second Defendant

Anton Rybalkin

Third Defendant

Chrysopa Holding BV

Fourth Defendant/respondent

Usarel Investments Limited

Fifth Defendant

Lux Investing Limited

Sixth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim for Interim Payment / Interim Application for Payment Under CPR 25.7

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to an interim payment under CPR 25.7(1)(a) or (c)
  2. 2 Whether the defendant has admitted liability to pay a sum of money
  3. 3 Whether the claimant would obtain judgment for a substantial sum at trial

Ratio Decidendi

Chrysopa admitted default on interest payments under the loan agreement, satisfying CPR 25.7(1)(a). Alternatively, the claimant would obtain judgment for a substantial sum under one or more heads of claim, satisfying CPR 25.7(1)(c). The court is satisfied that an interim payment of US$65 million is appropriate.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Chrysopa Holding BV to pay US$65 million to JSC BTA Bank as interim payment