Surkis & Ors v Poroshenko & Anor [2021] EWHC 2512 (Comm) (22 September 2021)

Surkis & Ors v Poroshenko & Anor [2021] EWHC 2512 (Comm) (22 September 2021)

The claims are barred by state immunity because the alleged conduct was performed by the Defendants in their public capacity, under colour of official authority, and forms part of the Ukrainian State's nationalisation of PrivatBank. The court cannot adjudicate on the legality of such acts under the act of state doctrine. The Defendants' influence was acquired through their official roles, and the claims are not against private acts but acts performed in discharge or purported discharge of public duties.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 2512 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Igor Surkis; Claimant/respondent: Camerin Investments LLP; Claimant/respondent: Sunnex Investments LLP; Claimant/respondent: Tamplemon Investments LLP; Claimant/respondent: Berlini Commercial LLP; Claimant/respondent: Lumil Investments LLP; Claimant/respondent: Sofinam Investments LLP; Defendant/applicant: Petro Poroshenko; Defendant/applicant: Valeria Gontareva
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Civil Claim / Application to Strike Out or Summarily Dismiss Claims and Challenge to Jurisdiction
Outcome
Claims struck out and/or summarily dismissed against the Defendants for want of jurisdiction due to state immunity.
Legal Topics
State Immunity Act 1978, Act of State Doctrine, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Jurisdiction, Foreign Sovereign Immunity
International Law State Immunity Commercial Law Tort Law State Immunity Act 1978 Act of State Doctrine Unlawful Means Conspiracy Jurisdiction +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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Igor Surkis

Claimant/respondent

Camerin Investments LLP

Claimant/respondent

Sunnex Investments LLP

Claimant/respondent

Tamplemon Investments LLP

Claimant/respondent

Berlini Commercial LLP

Claimant/respondent

Lumil Investments LLP

Claimant/respondent

Sofinam Investments LLP

Claimant/respondent

Petro Poroshenko

Defendant/applicant

Valeria Gontareva

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Civil Claim / Application to Strike Out or Summarily Dismiss Claims and Challenge to Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claims against the Defendants are barred by state immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978
  2. 2 Whether the act of state doctrine precludes adjudication of the claims
  3. 3 Whether the claims have a real prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

The claims are barred by state immunity because the alleged conduct was performed by the Defendants in their public capacity, under colour of official authority, and forms part of the Ukrainian State's nationalisation of PrivatBank. The court cannot adjudicate on the legality of such acts under the act of state doctrine. The Defendants' influence was acquired through their official roles, and the claims are not against private acts but acts performed in discharge or purported discharge of public duties.

Court Disposition

Claims struck out and/or summarily dismissed against the Defendants for want of jurisdiction due to state immunity.

Orders

  • The claims against Petro Poroshenko and Valeria Gontareva are struck out or summarily dismissed.
  • The court does not have jurisdiction to hear the claims against the Defendants under the State Immunity Act 1978.