Alliance Bank JSC v Aquanta Corporation & Ors

Alliance Bank JSC v Aquanta Corporation & Ors

The English court is not the clearly and distinctly most appropriate forum for these claims, given the overriding Kazakh connection, the existence of prior and ongoing proceedings in Kazakhstan, and the location of evidence and parties. The exclusive jurisdiction clause does not override these factors in the circumstances. The Claimant's applications to amend, serve out, and continue proceedings in England are refused and service is set aside. The freezing order is not discharged pending further application. Material non-disclosure is not found sufficient to set aside the orders at this stage.

Parties
Claimant: Alliance Bank JSC; First Defendant: Aquanta Corporation; Second Defendant: Bazora Corporation; Third Defendant: Serbina Ltd; Fourth Defendant: Xilliana Ltd; Fifth Defendant: Terpia Ltd (formerly Audina Management Services Ltd); Sixth Defendant: Mr Margulan Kaliyevich Seisembayev; Seventh Defendant: Mr Erlan Kaliyevich Seisembayev; Eighth Defendant: Mr Askar Kaliyevich Galin; Ninth Defendant: Seimar Alliance Financial Corporation JSC; Tenth Defendant: Mr Aleksei Ageyev; Eleventh Defendant: Mr Zhomart Zhadygeruly Ertayev; Twelfth Defendant: Mr Dauren Kereibayev; Thirteenth Defendant: Ms Irina Viktorovna Ivanova; Fourteenth Defendant: Mr Erik Sultankulov; Fifteenth Defendant: Mr Anuar Beisebayev
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Commercial Fraud / Civil Conspiracy / Banking / Freezing Order / Ruling on Applications to Set Aside Service, Jurisdiction, Stay, Amendment, and Freezing Order
Outcome
Applications by the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Defendants granted; Claimant's applications dismissed, subject to possible discrete reconsideration if claim limited to subrogated claim against Third and Fourth Defendants alone.
Legal Topics
Worldwide Freezing Orders, Jurisdictional Challenges, Conspiracy, Dishonest Assistance, Knowing Receipt, Unjust Enrichment, Subrogation, Forum Non Conveniens, Non Disclosure, Service Out of Jurisdiction
Commercial Law Banking Law Conflict of Laws Civil Procedure Worldwide Freezing Orders Jurisdictional Challenges Conspiracy Dishonest Assistance +6 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 7 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alliance Bank JSC

Claimant

Aquanta Corporation

First Defendant

Bazora Corporation

Second Defendant

Serbina Ltd

Third Defendant

Xilliana Ltd

Fourth Defendant

Terpia Ltd (formerly Audina Management Services Ltd)

Fifth Defendant

Mr Margulan Kaliyevich Seisembayev

Sixth Defendant

Mr Erlan Kaliyevich Seisembayev

Seventh Defendant

Mr Askar Kaliyevich Galin

Eighth Defendant

Seimar Alliance Financial Corporation JSC

Ninth Defendant

Mr Aleksei Ageyev

Tenth Defendant

Mr Zhomart Zhadygeruly Ertayev

Eleventh Defendant

Mr Dauren Kereibayev

Twelfth Defendant

Ms Irina Viktorovna Ivanova

Thirteenth Defendant

Mr Erik Sultankulov

Fourteenth Defendant

Mr Anuar Beisebayev

Fifteenth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Fraud / Civil Conspiracy / Banking / Freezing Order / Ruling on Applications to Set Aside Service, Jurisdiction, Stay, Amendment, and Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction over the Defendants for claims of conspiracy, dishonest assistance, knowing receipt, and unjust enrichment
  2. 2 Whether the claims should be stayed or set aside for forum non conveniens or multiplicity of proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant can pursue subrogated claims under loan agreements

Ratio Decidendi

The English court is not the clearly and distinctly most appropriate forum for these claims, given the overriding Kazakh connection, the existence of prior and ongoing proceedings in Kazakhstan, and the location of evidence and parties. The exclusive jurisdiction clause does not override these factors in the circumstances. The Claimant's applications to amend, serve out, and continue proceedings in England are refused and service is set aside. The freezing order is not discharged pending further application. Material non-disclosure is not found sufficient to set aside the orders at this stage.

Court Disposition

Applications by the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Defendants granted; Claimant's applications dismissed, subject to possible discrete reconsideration if claim limited to subrogated claim against Third and Fourth Defendants alone.

Orders

  • Service of proceedings against active Defendants set aside
  • Permission to amend Particulars of Claim refused