PJSC National Bank Trust & Anor v Boris Mints & Ors [2023] EWHC 118 (Comm) (27 January 2023)

PJSC National Bank Trust & Anor v Boris Mints & Ors [2023] EWHC 118 (Comm) (27 January 2023)

The UK sanctions regime does not preclude the entry of judgment for a sanctioned claimant; entry of judgment is not a prohibited or licensable act under the relevant legislation. OFSI can license satisfaction of adverse costs, security for costs, and cross-undertaking damages orders. The 'control' issue regarding NBT does not arise on the facts, but if it did, it would be resolved in favour of the claimants. There is no clear legislative intent to curtail the right of access to the courts in these circumstances.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 118 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: PJSC National Bank Trust; Claimant: PJSC Bank Otkritie Financial Corporation; Defendant: Boris Mints; Defendant: Dmitry Mints; Defendant: Alexander Mints; Defendant: Igor Mints; Defendant: Vadim Belyaev; Defendant: Evgeny Dankevich; Defendant: Mikail Shishkhanov; Defendant: MaplesFS Limited (as former trustee of the MF Trust); Defendant: MFT (PTC) Limited (as trustee of the MF Trust)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Litigation (consolidated Claims) / Interlocutory Application for Stay and Release From Undertakings Due to Sanctions
Outcome
Applications for stay and release from undertakings refused; proceedings may continue.
Legal Topics
Effect of Sanctions on Litigation, Asset Freezing, Access to Courts Under Sanctions, Security for Costs, Adverse Costs Orders, Cross Undertaking in Damages, Ownership and Control Under Sanctions Regime
Sanctions Law Civil Procedure Banking Law Effect of Sanctions on Litigation Asset Freezing Access to Courts Under Sanctions Security for Costs Adverse Costs Orders +2 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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PJSC National Bank Trust

Claimant

PJSC Bank Otkritie Financial Corporation

Claimant

Boris Mints

Defendant

Dmitry Mints

Defendant

Alexander Mints

Defendant

Igor Mints

Defendant

Vadim Belyaev

Defendant

Evgeny Dankevich

Defendant

Mikail Shishkhanov

Defendant

MaplesFS Limited (as former trustee of the MF Trust)

Defendant

MFT (PTC) Limited (as trustee of the MF Trust)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Litigation (consolidated Claims) / Interlocutory Application for Stay and Release From Undertakings Due to Sanctions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether UK sanctions regime precludes entry of judgment for sanctioned claimants
  2. 2 Whether satisfaction of costs/security/damages orders is prohibited or licensable under sanctions
  3. 3 Whether NBT is 'owned or controlled' by designated persons under the regulations

Ratio Decidendi

The UK sanctions regime does not preclude the entry of judgment for a sanctioned claimant; entry of judgment is not a prohibited or licensable act under the relevant legislation. OFSI can license satisfaction of adverse costs, security for costs, and cross-undertaking damages orders. The 'control' issue regarding NBT does not arise on the facts, but if it did, it would be resolved in favour of the claimants. There is no clear legislative intent to curtail the right of access to the courts in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Applications for stay and release from undertakings refused; proceedings may continue.

Orders

  • Judgment can lawfully be entered for sanctioned claimants.
  • OFSI can license satisfaction of adverse costs, security for costs, and cross-undertaking damages orders.