Alliance Bank JSC v Aquanta Corporation & Ors [2011] EWHC 3281 (Comm) (14 December 2011)

Alliance Bank JSC v Aquanta Corporation & Ors [2011] EWHC 3281 (Comm) (14 December 2011)

The court held that there is a serious issue to be tried on the merits of the claimant's claims for conspiracy, dishonest assistance, knowing receipt, and unjust enrichment against the relevant defendants. The claimant is entitled to pursue subrogated claims under the Reachcom loan agreements and guarantees, and to amend its particulars to plead Kazakh law alternatives. The exclusive jurisdiction clauses in the Reachcom agreements confer English jurisdiction, and the application for a stay pending arbitration by the Third and Fourth Defendants fails. However, the claimant does not have a sufficiently arguable subrogated claim under the Metropol loan agreements, so no stay is required for...

Citation
[2011] EWHC 3281 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Alliance Bank JSC; First Defendant: Aquanta Corporation; Second Defendant: Bazora Corporation; Third Defendant: Serbina Ltd; Fourth Defendant: Xilliana Ltd; Fifth Defendant: Terapia Ltd (formerly Audina Management Services Ltd); Sixth Defendant: Mr Margulan Kaliyveich Seisembayev; Seventh Defendant: Mr Erlan Kaliyveich Seisembayev; Eighth Defendant: Mr Askar Kaliyveich Galin; Ninth Defendant: Seimar Alliance Financial Corporation JSC; Tenth Defendant: Mr Aleksei Ageyev; Eleventh Defendant: Mr Zhomart Zhadygeruly Ertayev; Twelfth Defendant: Mr Dauren Kereibayev; Thirteenth Defendant: Ms Irina Viktorovna Ivanova; Fourteenth Defendant: Mr Erik Sultankulov; Fifteenth Defendant: Mr Anuar Beisebayev
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Civil Claim / Interlocutory Applications: Jurisdiction Challenge, Stay Pending Arbitration, Amendment of Particulars, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Continuation of Freezing Order
Outcome
Applications by the active defendants to set aside the freezing order, service out of jurisdiction, and to stay proceedings pending arbitration are dismissed in respect of the Reachcom loan agreements and conspiracy claims; claimant's application to amend particulars is granted; freezing order and service out...
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Freezing Orders, Conspiracy, Dishonest Assistance, Knowing Receipt, Unjust Enrichment, Subrogation, Piercing the Corporate Veil, Conflict of Laws
Commercial Law Private International Law Restitution Tort Law Jurisdiction Freezing Orders Conspiracy Dishonest Assistance +5 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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alliance Bank JSC

Claimant

Aquanta Corporation

First Defendant

Bazora Corporation

Second Defendant

Serbina Ltd

Third Defendant

Xilliana Ltd

Fourth Defendant

Terapia Ltd (formerly Audina Management Services Ltd)

Fifth Defendant

Mr Margulan Kaliyveich Seisembayev

Sixth Defendant

Mr Erlan Kaliyveich Seisembayev

Seventh Defendant

Mr Askar Kaliyveich Galin

Eighth Defendant

Seimar Alliance Financial Corporation JSC

Ninth Defendant

Mr Aleksei Ageyev

Tenth Defendant

Mr Zhomart Zhadygeruly Ertayev

Eleventh Defendant

Mr Dauren Kereibayev

Twelfth Defendant

Ms Irina Viktorovna Ivanova

Thirteenth Defendant

Mr Erik Sultankulov

Fourteenth Defendant

Mr Anuar Beisebayev

Fifteenth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Civil Claim / Interlocutory Applications: Jurisdiction Challenge, Stay Pending Arbitration, Amendment of Particulars, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Continuation of Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction over foreign defendants in a conspiracy and restitution claim involving offshore companies and Kazakh parties
  2. 2 Whether a stay pending arbitration should be granted in light of arbitration clauses in loan agreements
  3. 3 Whether the claimant can pursue subrogated claims under loan agreements and guarantees

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that there is a serious issue to be tried on the merits of the claimant's claims for conspiracy, dishonest assistance, knowing receipt, and unjust enrichment against the relevant defendants. The claimant is entitled to pursue subrogated claims under the Reachcom loan agreements and guarantees, and to amend its particulars to plead Kazakh law alternatives. The exclusive jurisdiction clauses in the Reachcom agreements confer English jurisdiction, and the application for a stay pending arbitration by the Third and Fourth Defendants fails. However, the claimant does not have a sufficiently arguable subrogated claim under the Metropol loan agreements, so no stay is required for...

Court Disposition

Applications by the active defendants to set aside the freezing order, service out of jurisdiction, and to stay proceedings pending arbitration are dismissed in respect of the Reachcom loan agreements and conspiracy claims; claimant's application to amend particulars is granted; freezing order and service out...

Orders

  • Continuation of worldwide freezing order against active defendants
  • Permission to serve amended particulars of claim out of jurisdiction