LLC Eurochem North-West-2 v Societe Generale SA & Ors [2023] EWHC 2720 (Comm) (03 November 2023)

LLC Eurochem North-West-2 v Societe Generale SA & Ors [2023] EWHC 2720 (Comm) (03 November 2023)

The court declined to grant the orders sought because the requirements for interim payment, detention or preservation of property, or payment of a specified fund were not met; the sums claimed were not 'relevant property' or a 'specified fund'; there was no proprietary claim; damages would be an adequate remedy; and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 2720 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: LLC EuroChem North-West-2; First Defendant: Société Générale S.A.; Second Defendant: Société Générale Paris; Third Defendant: Société Générale Milan; Fourth Defendant: ING Bank N.V.; Fifth Defendant: ING Bank N.V. – Milan Branch; Third Party: Tecnimont S.P.A.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim / Interlocutory Application for Interim Payment or Security
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Interim Remedies, On Demand Bonds, Sanctions, Jurisdiction, Inherent Jurisdiction, Freezing Orders
Commercial Law Banking Law Civil Procedure Interim Remedies On Demand Bonds Sanctions Jurisdiction Inherent Jurisdiction +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LLC EuroChem North-West-2

Claimant

Société Générale S.A.

First Defendant

Société Générale Paris

Second Defendant

Société Générale Milan

Third Defendant

ING Bank N.V.

Fourth Defendant

ING Bank N.V. – Milan Branch

Fifth Defendant

Tecnimont S.P.A.

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim / Interlocutory Application for Interim Payment or Security

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to order payment into court or a frozen account of sums claimed under on-demand bonds
  2. 2 Whether the sums claimed constitute 'relevant property' or a 'specified fund' under CPR 25.1
  3. 3 Whether the requirements for interim payment, detention/preservation of property, or interim injunction are met

Ratio Decidendi

The court declined to grant the orders sought because the requirements for interim payment, detention or preservation of property, or payment of a specified fund were not met; the sums claimed were not 'relevant property' or a 'specified fund'; there was no proprietary claim; damages would be an adequate remedy; and the order would have minimal utility and potential prejudice to the Defendants, including risk of breaching sanctions.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed