PJSC National Bank Trust & Anor v Mints & Ors[2022] EWHC 871 (Comm) (11 April 2022)

PJSC National Bank Trust & Anor v Mints & Ors[2022] EWHC 871 (Comm) (11 April 2022)

The court held that it is not realistically arguable that the respondents, as non-parties to the LCIA arbitration, are privies for the purposes of issue estoppel. The exceptional nature of binding non-parties to arbitration awards, the lack of sufficient identification or control, and the procedural and substantive differences between the arbitration and the present proceedings preclude the application of issue estoppel or abuse of process. Permission to amend to plead issue estoppel was refused, and summary judgment or conditional orders were not granted.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 871 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant/applicant: PJSC National Bank Trust; Claimant/applicant: PJSC Bank Otkritie Financial Corporation; Defendant/respondent: Boris Mints; Defendant/respondent: Dmitry Mints; Defendant/respondent: Alexander Mints; Defendant/respondent: Igor Mints; Defendant/respondent: Vadim Belyaev; Defendant/respondent: Evgeny DankeVich; Defendant/respondent: Mikhail Shishkhanov; Defendant/respondent: MaplesFS Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim / Interlocutory Application for Permission to Amend, Summary Judgment, or Summary Determination
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Issue Estoppel, Abuse of Process, Privity, Enforcement of Arbitration Awards, Summary Judgment, Amendment of Pleadings
Civil Procedure Arbitration Banking and Finance Issue Estoppel Abuse of Process Privity Enforcement of Arbitration Awards Summary Judgment +1 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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PJSC National Bank Trust

Claimant/applicant

PJSC Bank Otkritie Financial Corporation

Claimant/applicant

Boris Mints

Defendant/respondent

Dmitry Mints

Defendant/respondent

Alexander Mints

Defendant/respondent

Igor Mints

Defendant/respondent

Vadim Belyaev

Defendant/respondent

Evgeny DankeVich

Defendant/respondent

Mikhail Shishkhanov

Defendant/respondent

MaplesFS Ltd

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim / Interlocutory Application for Permission to Amend, Summary Judgment, or Summary Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether non-parties to an arbitration can be bound by issue estoppel arising from an arbitral award under English law
  2. 2 Whether the claimants can amend pleadings to assert preclusion arguments based on an LCIA award
  3. 3 Whether summary judgment or summary determination is appropriate on the preclusion arguments

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that it is not realistically arguable that the respondents, as non-parties to the LCIA arbitration, are privies for the purposes of issue estoppel. The exceptional nature of binding non-parties to arbitration awards, the lack of sufficient identification or control, and the procedural and substantive differences between the arbitration and the present proceedings preclude the application of issue estoppel or abuse of process. Permission to amend to plead issue estoppel was refused, and summary judgment or conditional orders were not granted.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to amend to plead issue estoppel refused
  • Summary judgment or summary determination on preclusion arguments refused