Alliance Bank JSC v Aquanta Corporation & Ors

Alliance Bank JSC v Aquanta Corporation & Ors

The English court does not have jurisdiction over the claims against the Respondents. Service out of the jurisdiction was improperly granted because the subrogated contractual claims are not sustainable, the claims in implied contract were not properly before the court, and the non-contractual claims do not fall within the relevant service out gateways. England is not clearly or distinctly the appropriate forum for the resolution of the dispute, which has its centre of gravity in Kazakhstan. The Worldwide Freezing Order must be set aside.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Alliance Bank JSC; Respondent/defendant (1st): Aquanta Corporation; Respondent/defendant (2nd): Bazora Corporation; Respondent/defendant (3rd): Serbina Limited; Respondent/defendant (4th): Xilliana Limited; Respondent/defendant (5th): Terpia Limited (formerly Audina Management Services Limited); Respondent/defendant (6th): Mr Margulan Kaliyevich Seisembayev; Respondent/defendant (7th): Mr Erlan Kaliyevich Seisembayev; Respondent/defendant (8th): Mr Askar Kaliyevich Galin; Respondent/defendant (9th): Seimar Alliance Financial Corporation JSC; Respondent/defendant (10th): Mr Aleksei Ageyev; Respondent/defendant (11th): Mr Zhomart Zhadygeruly Ertayev; Respondent/defendant (12th): Mr Dauren Kereibayev; Respondent/defendant (13th): Ms Irina Viktorovna Ivanova; Respondent/defendant (14th): Mr Erik Sultankulov; Respondent/defendant (15th): Mr Anuar Beisebayev
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (commercial Court) to Court of Appeal; Judgment on Jurisdiction and Service Out of the Jurisdiction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. The order setting aside service out of the jurisdiction and the Worldwide Freezing Order is upheld.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Forum Non Conveniens, Contract Law, Tort Law, Fraud, Subrogation, Implied Contract, Conspiracy, Dishonest Assistance, Knowing Receipt, Unjust Enrichment
Civil Procedure Private International Law Commercial Law Jurisdiction Service Out of Jurisdiction Forum Non Conveniens Contract Law Tort Law +7 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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alliance Bank JSC

Appellant/claimant

Aquanta Corporation

Respondent/defendant (1st)

Bazora Corporation

Respondent/defendant (2nd)

Serbina Limited

Respondent/defendant (3rd)

Xilliana Limited

Respondent/defendant (4th)

Terpia Limited (formerly Audina Management Services Limited)

Respondent/defendant (5th)

Mr Margulan Kaliyevich Seisembayev

Respondent/defendant (6th)

Mr Erlan Kaliyevich Seisembayev

Respondent/defendant (7th)

Mr Askar Kaliyevich Galin

Respondent/defendant (8th)

Seimar Alliance Financial Corporation JSC

Respondent/defendant (9th)

Mr Aleksei Ageyev

Respondent/defendant (10th)

Mr Zhomart Zhadygeruly Ertayev

Respondent/defendant (11th)

Mr Dauren Kereibayev

Respondent/defendant (12th)

Ms Irina Viktorovna Ivanova

Respondent/defendant (13th)

Mr Erik Sultankulov

Respondent/defendant (14th)

Mr Anuar Beisebayev

Respondent/defendant (15th)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (commercial Court) to Court of Appeal; Judgment on Jurisdiction and Service Out of the Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction over the claims against the Respondents
  2. 2 Whether service out of the jurisdiction was properly granted
  3. 3 Whether England is the appropriate forum for the dispute

Ratio Decidendi

The English court does not have jurisdiction over the claims against the Respondents. Service out of the jurisdiction was improperly granted because the subrogated contractual claims are not sustainable, the claims in implied contract were not properly before the court, and the non-contractual claims do not fall within the relevant service out gateways. England is not clearly or distinctly the appropriate forum for the resolution of the dispute, which has its centre of gravity in Kazakhstan. The Worldwide Freezing Order must be set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. The order setting aside service out of the jurisdiction and the Worldwide Freezing Order is upheld.

Orders

  • The appeal by Alliance Bank JSC is dismissed.
  • The Worldwide Freezing Order is set aside, subject to any argument concerning its continuation pending a possible further appeal.