PJSC National Bank Trust & Ors v Mints & Ors [2021] EWHC 1089 (Comm) (30 April 2021)

PJSC National Bank Trust & Ors v Mints & Ors [2021] EWHC 1089 (Comm) (30 April 2021)

The applicant failed to show a good arguable case that the alleged losses were caused by the freezing order or return date undertakings rather than by other factors such as the underlying litigation, criminal proceedings, or general reputational issues. The evidence for loss and causation was insufficient, speculative, or too remote. No further fortification was justified beyond the existing amount.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 1089 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: PJSC National Bank Trust; Claimant/respondent: PJSC Bank Otkritie Financial Corporation; Defendant: Boris Mints; Defendant: Dmitry Mints; Defendant: Alexander Mints; Defendant/applicant: Igor Mints; Defendant: Vadim Belyaev; Defendant: Evgeny Dankevich; Defendant: Mihail Shishkhanov
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application (fortification of Cross Undertaking in Damages) / Interlocutory Application for Further Fortification of Cross Undertaking
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Cross Undertaking in Damages, Fortification of Undertakings, Causation of Loss, Remoteness of Damage
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Freezing Injunctions Cross Undertaking in Damages Fortification of Undertakings Causation of Loss Remoteness of Damage

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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PJSC National Bank Trust

Claimant/respondent

PJSC Bank Otkritie Financial Corporation

Claimant/respondent

Boris Mints

Defendant

Dmitry Mints

Defendant

Alexander Mints

Defendant

Igor Mints

Defendant/applicant

Vadim Belyaev

Defendant

Evgeny Dankevich

Defendant

Mihail Shishkhanov

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application (fortification of Cross Undertaking in Damages) / Interlocutory Application for Further Fortification of Cross Undertaking

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant (Igor Mints) has shown a good arguable case for requiring further fortification of the claimants' cross-undertaking in damages under the worldwide freezing order and return date order; specifically, whether there is a sufficient risk of loss, causation by the orders, and an intelligent estimate of quantum.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to show a good arguable case that the alleged losses were caused by the freezing order or return date undertakings rather than by other factors such as the underlying litigation, criminal proceedings, or general reputational issues. The evidence for loss and causation was insufficient, speculative, or too remote. No further fortification was justified beyond the existing amount.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • No further fortification of the cross-undertaking is required beyond the existing US$2,000,000.
  • Costs reserved or to be determined as appropriate.