Akcine Bendrove Bankas Snoras v Antonov & Ors [2018] EWHC 887 (Comm) (20 April 2018)

Akcine Bendrove Bankas Snoras v Antonov & Ors [2018] EWHC 887 (Comm) (20 April 2018)

The Lithuanian and Swiss arrest orders were obtained independently under foreign law in support of the Lithuanian civil claim and not as enforcement or duplication of the English freezing order; therefore, Snoras did not breach the undertaking given to the English court.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 887 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant/applicant: AKCINE BĖNDROVĖ BANKAS SNORAS; 1st Defendant/respondent: VLADIMIR ANTONOV; 2nd Defendant/respondent: RAIMONDAS BARANAUSKAS; Third Respondent: PORTPIN LIMITED
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application for Declaratory Relief / Post Interlocutory, Determination of Compliance With Court Undertaking
Outcome
Declaration granted: No breach of undertaking by Snoras.
Legal Topics
Worldwide Freezing Orders, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Undertakings to Court, Asset Seizure, Contempt of Court
Civil Procedure Injunctions International Litigation Worldwide Freezing Orders Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Undertakings to Court Asset Seizure Contempt of Court

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AKCINE BĖNDROVĖ BANKAS SNORAS

Claimant/applicant

VLADIMIR ANTONOV

1st Defendant/respondent

RAIMONDAS BARANAUSKAS

2nd Defendant/respondent

PORTPIN LIMITED

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application for Declaratory Relief / Post Interlocutory, Determination of Compliance With Court Undertaking

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether obtaining Lithuanian and Swiss asset arrest orders breached the English court undertaking not to enforce or seek similar orders abroad without permission
  2. 2 Interpretation of the scope of the undertaking in the English worldwide freezing order

Ratio Decidendi

The Lithuanian and Swiss arrest orders were obtained independently under foreign law in support of the Lithuanian civil claim and not as enforcement or duplication of the English freezing order; therefore, Snoras did not breach the undertaking given to the English court.

Court Disposition

Declaration granted: No breach of undertaking by Snoras.

Orders

  • Snoras's application for declaration is allowed.
  • No retrospective permission required; if breach had occurred, permission would have been granted.