Vesnin v Queeld Ventures Ltd & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 951 (22 July 2025)

Vesnin v Queeld Ventures Ltd & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 951 (22 July 2025)

There was no issue estoppel created by the Johnson Judgment; the Tomlin Order did not require the undertaking to remain until final determination of beneficial ownership, and the court retained discretion to release it. Q&M did not have standing to oppose recognition of the Russian bankruptcy at common law as they lacked a legitimate interest in the bankruptcy. The High Court's exercise of discretion and procedure was not unfair.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Civ 951
Parties
Appellant/respondent: Evgeny Vasilievich Vesnin; Respondent/appellant: Queeld Ventures Limited; Respondent/appellant: Mispare Limited; Respondent/appellant: Eurasia Mining PLC; Respondent/appellant: PJSC National Bank Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeals From High Court Decisions
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Issue Estoppel, Tomlin Order Construction, Standing to Oppose Recognition of Foreign Bankruptcy, Recognition of Foreign Insolvency, Stakeholder Proceedings, Procedural Fairness
Insolvency Law Civil Procedure Company Law Issue Estoppel Tomlin Order Construction Standing to Oppose Recognition of Foreign Bankruptcy Recognition of Foreign Insolvency Stakeholder Proceedings +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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Evgeny Vasilievich Vesnin

Appellant/respondent

Queeld Ventures Limited

Respondent/appellant

Mispare Limited

Respondent/appellant

Eurasia Mining PLC

Respondent/appellant

PJSC National Bank Trust

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeals From High Court Decisions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Johnson Judgment created an issue estoppel binding Q&M regarding release of the undertaking under the Tomlin Order
  2. 2 Proper construction of the Tomlin Order and whether the undertaking must remain until final determination of beneficial ownership
  3. 3 Whether Q&M had standing to oppose recognition of a foreign bankruptcy order at common law

Ratio Decidendi

There was no issue estoppel created by the Johnson Judgment; the Tomlin Order did not require the undertaking to remain until final determination of beneficial ownership, and the court retained discretion to release it. Q&M did not have standing to oppose recognition of the Russian bankruptcy at common law as they lacked a legitimate interest in the bankruptcy. The High Court's exercise of discretion and procedure was not unfair.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Mr Vesnin's appeal against the Morgan Judgment dismissed
  • Q&M's appeal against the Standing Judgment dismissed