INTEGRAL PETROLEUM SA and Ors v BANK GPB INTERNATIONAL SA and Ors

INTEGRAL PETROLEUM SA and Ors v BANK GPB INTERNATIONAL SA and Ors

The Bank has not established that the Claimants have no real prospect of defending the counterclaim; there are triable issues of fact regarding whether an oral agreement to extend payment terms was reached and whether it was legally binding, which require full evidence and cross-examination at trial.

Parties
Claimant: Integral Petroleum S. A.; Claimant: Mr Murat Seitnepesov; Claimant: Etoile Energy Ltd; Claimant: Berec Group Ltd; Claimant: Broadex Trading Ltd; Claimant: Ajap Trading LLP; Defendant: Bank GPB International S. A.; Defendant: Ivan Dun; Defendant: Vadim Linchevsky; Defendant: Oleg Predtechensky
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Commercial / Summary Judgment Application (counterclaim)
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Oral Variation, Facility Agreement, Default, Restructuring, Estoppel, Consideration, No Oral Modification Clause
Contract Law Banking Law Commercial Law Summary Judgment Oral Variation Facility Agreement Default Restructuring +3 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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Integral Petroleum S. A.

Claimant

Mr Murat Seitnepesov

Claimant

Etoile Energy Ltd

Claimant

Berec Group Ltd

Claimant

Broadex Trading Ltd

Claimant

Ajap Trading LLP

Claimant

Bank GPB International S. A.

Defendant

Ivan Dun

Defendant

Vadim Linchevsky

Defendant

Oleg Predtechensky

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial / Summary Judgment Application (counterclaim)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an oral agreement to extend payment terms was reached and legally binding
  2. 2 Whether the Facility Agreement's 'no oral modification' clause precludes oral variation
  3. 3 Whether consideration and intention to create legal relations existed for any alleged variation

Ratio Decidendi

The Bank has not established that the Claimants have no real prospect of defending the counterclaim; there are triable issues of fact regarding whether an oral agreement to extend payment terms was reached and whether it was legally binding, which require full evidence and cross-examination at trial.

Court Disposition

application dismissed