JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & Ors

JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & Ors

The court found that the loan agreements, including the arbitration clause, were at most voidable and had not been avoided by the Bank. The arbitration agreement was valid and binding, and the Bank had not shown it was null and void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed. The arbitration clause was broad enough to cover the claims, including non-contractual claims. Therefore, the proceedings against Tekhinvest were stayed under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996. The claims against Colligate were stayed on case management grounds, as they were inextricably linked to those against Tekhinvest and Colligate consented to arbitration.

Parties
Claimant: JSC BTA Bank; First Defendant: Mukhtar Ablyazov; Second Defendant: Ildar Gayarevich Khazhaev; Third Defendant/applicant: CJSC Tekhinvest; Fourth Defendant: Konvis LLC; Fifth Defendant: PaladioExport LLC; Sixth Defendant: CityBestPlus LLC; Seventh Defendant/applicant: Colligate Investments Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim (application for Stay of Proceedings) / Ruling on Applications for Stay Under Arbitration Act 1996 and Case Management Grounds
Outcome
Stay of proceedings granted against Tekhinvest and Colligate
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Arbitration Agreement, Separability, Jurisdiction, Forum Non Conveniens
Arbitration Commercial Law Banking Law Stay of Proceedings Arbitration Agreement Separability Jurisdiction Forum Non Conveniens

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JSC BTA Bank

Claimant

Mukhtar Ablyazov

First Defendant

Ildar Gayarevich Khazhaev

Second Defendant

CJSC Tekhinvest

Third Defendant/applicant

Konvis LLC

Fourth Defendant

PaladioExport LLC

Fifth Defendant

CityBestPlus LLC

Sixth Defendant

Colligate Investments Limited

Seventh Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim (application for Stay of Proceedings) / Ruling on Applications for Stay Under Arbitration Act 1996 and Case Management Grounds

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claims against Tekhinvest should be stayed under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 due to an arbitration agreement
  2. 2 Whether the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed
  3. 3 Whether the claims against Colligate should be stayed on case management grounds

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the loan agreements, including the arbitration clause, were at most voidable and had not been avoided by the Bank. The arbitration agreement was valid and binding, and the Bank had not shown it was null and void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed. The arbitration clause was broad enough to cover the claims, including non-contractual claims. Therefore, the proceedings against Tekhinvest were stayed under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996. The claims against Colligate were stayed on case management grounds, as they were inextricably linked to those against Tekhinvest and Colligate consented to arbitration.

Court Disposition

Stay of proceedings granted against Tekhinvest and Colligate

Orders

  • Proceedings against CJSC Tekhinvest stayed under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 pending arbitration
  • Proceedings against Colligate Investments Limited stayed on case management grounds pending outcome of arbitration against Tekhinvest