PJSC National Bank Trust & Anor v Mints & Ors [2021] EWHC 692 (Comm) (23 March 2021)

PJSC National Bank Trust & Anor v Mints & Ors [2021] EWHC 692 (Comm) (23 March 2021)

Given the claimants' reasonable choice to sue the Mints Defendants in England for enforceability reasons, and the materially increased risk of inconsistent judgments and multiplicity of proceedings if the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Defendants were sued in Russia, England is the appropriate forum for the claims against all defendants. The applications to set aside permission to serve out of the jurisdiction are dismissed.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 692 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: PJSC National Bank Trust; Claimant: PJSC Otkritie Financial Corporation; Defendant: Boris Mints; Defendant: Dmitry Mints; Defendant: Alexander Mints; Defendant: Igor Mints; Defendant: Vadim Belyaev (aka Vadim Wolfson); Defendant: Evgeny Dankevich; Defendant: Mikail Shishkhanov
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Proceedings (applications to Set Aside Service Out of Jurisdiction) / Interlocutory Application—challenge to Jurisdiction (forum Conveniens)
Outcome
Applications to set aside permission to serve out of the jurisdiction on the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Defendants dismissed.
Legal Topics
Forum Non Conveniens, Jurisdiction, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Conspiracy, Breach of Statutory Duty
Private International Law Commercial Law Banking Law Forum Non Conveniens Jurisdiction Service Out of Jurisdiction Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Conspiracy +1 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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PJSC National Bank Trust

Claimant

PJSC Otkritie Financial Corporation

Claimant

Boris Mints

Defendant

Dmitry Mints

Defendant

Alexander Mints

Defendant

Igor Mints

Defendant

Vadim Belyaev (aka Vadim Wolfson)

Defendant

Evgeny Dankevich

Defendant

Mikail Shishkhanov

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Proceedings (applications to Set Aside Service Out of Jurisdiction) / Interlocutory Application—challenge to Jurisdiction (forum Conveniens)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether England is the proper forum for claims against the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Defendants (forum conveniens)
  2. 2 Whether permission to serve out of the jurisdiction should be set aside
  3. 3 Whether the risk of inconsistent judgments and multiplicity of proceedings justifies English jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

Given the claimants' reasonable choice to sue the Mints Defendants in England for enforceability reasons, and the materially increased risk of inconsistent judgments and multiplicity of proceedings if the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Defendants were sued in Russia, England is the appropriate forum for the claims against all defendants. The applications to set aside permission to serve out of the jurisdiction are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Applications to set aside permission to serve out of the jurisdiction on the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Defendants dismissed.

Orders

  • Permission to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction on the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Defendants is upheld.
  • Proceedings against all defendants to continue in the English Commercial Court.