PJSC National Bank Trust & Ors v Mints & Ors

PJSC National Bank Trust & Ors v Mints & Ors

The application for additional fortification was dismissed because the losses claimed by the applicant were too remote, not caused by the freezing order or return date undertakings, and lacked sufficient evidential foundation. The court found no good arguable case that the losses would not have been suffered but for the injunction, and the quantum of loss was unreliable.

Parties
Claimant: PJSC National Bank Trust; Claimant: 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 / Application for Additional Fortification of Cross Undertakings
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Fortification of Cross Undertakings, Freezing Orders, Causation, Remoteness, Compensation Under Undertakings
Civil Procedure Injunctions Commercial Law Fortification of Cross Undertakings Freezing Orders Causation Remoteness Compensation Under Undertakings

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
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/applicant

Vadim Belyaev

Defendant

Evgeny Dankevich

Defendant

Mihail Shishkhanov

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial / Application for Additional Fortification of Cross Undertakings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether additional fortification of cross-undertakings is required under the worldwide freezing order and return date order
  2. 2 Whether losses claimed by third-party entities associated with the Fourth Defendant are recoverable under the cross-undertakings
  3. 3 Whether the losses were caused by the freezing order or are too remote

Ratio Decidendi

The application for additional fortification was dismissed because the losses claimed by the applicant were too remote, not caused by the freezing order or return date undertakings, and lacked sufficient evidential foundation. The court found no good arguable case that the losses would not have been suffered but for the injunction, and the quantum of loss was unreliable.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • No additional fortification required beyond the US$2,000,000 already provided under the Return Date Order.