Investec Bank Plc v Pavlo Protopapa & Anor

Investec Bank Plc v Pavlo Protopapa & Anor

The court refused to stay proceedings or set aside the claim form because the parties' jurisdiction agreements (including a clause stating England is the most appropriate forum and a waiver of contrary argument) preclude forum non conveniens arguments except on very strong or exceptional unforeseen grounds, which...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Investec Bank PLC; First Defendant: Pavlo Protopapa; Second Defendant: Abdallah Chatila
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 August 2025
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim (jurisdiction Challenge) / Ruling on Application to Stay Proceedings and Set Aside Claim Form on Forum Non Conveniens Grounds
Outcome
Defendants' applications dismissed; English court will exercise jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Agreements, Forum Non Conveniens, Contractual Estoppel, Submission to Jurisdiction, Asymmetric Jurisdiction Clauses
Civil Procedure Conflict of Laws Banking and Finance Jurisdiction Agreements Forum Non Conveniens Contractual Estoppel Submission to Jurisdiction Asymmetric Jurisdiction Clauses

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 3 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Investec Bank PLC

Claimant

Pavlo Protopapa

First Defendant

Abdallah Chatila

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim (jurisdiction Challenge) / Ruling on Application to Stay Proceedings and Set Aside Claim Form on Forum Non Conveniens Grounds

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court should stay proceedings and decline jurisdiction in favour of Switzerland despite jurisdiction agreements in loan facilities
  2. 2 Whether the defendants are contractually estopped from raising forum non conveniens arguments
  3. 3 Whether the second defendant submitted to the jurisdiction by procedural conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to stay proceedings or set aside the claim form because the parties' jurisdiction agreements (including a clause stating England is the most appropriate forum and a waiver of contrary argument) preclude forum non conveniens arguments except on very strong or exceptional unforeseen grounds, which were not established. The defendants are contractually estopped from challenging jurisdiction, and the second defendant did not submit to jurisdiction by procedural conduct.

Court Disposition

Defendants' applications dismissed; English court will exercise jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Application for stay of proceedings refused.
  • Application to set aside claim form refused.