VTB Commodities Trading DAC v JSC Antipinsky Refinery [2020] EWHC 72 (Comm) (20 January 2020)

VTB Commodities Trading DAC v JSC Antipinsky Refinery [2020] EWHC 72 (Comm) (20 January 2020)

The court lacked jurisdiction to continue the injunctions post-urgency absent tribunal permission or written agreement; once tribunal permission was granted, the WFO was continued despite material non-disclosure, which was peripheral and not prejudicial, but the Cargo Injunction was discharged as specific performance for unascertained goods was not justified in the circumstances.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 72 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: VTB Commodities Trading DAC; Defendant: JSC Antipinsky Refinery; Intervener: Petraco Oil Company SA
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Arbitration Related Proceedings / Post Interim Injunction, Applications to Continue/discharge Injunctions
Outcome
WFO continued until termination of arbitration; Cargo Injunction discharged; Polar Rock sale application refused.
Legal Topics
Section 44 Arbitration Act 1996, Worldwide Freezing Order, Specific Performance, Material Non Disclosure, Sale of Goods Act 1979, Interim Relief
Arbitration Commercial Law Injunctions Section 44 Arbitration Act 1996 Worldwide Freezing Order Specific Performance Material Non Disclosure Sale of Goods Act 1979 +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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

VTB Commodities Trading DAC

Claimant

JSC Antipinsky Refinery

Defendant

Petraco Oil Company SA

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Arbitration Related Proceedings / Post Interim Injunction, Applications to Continue/discharge Injunctions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Jurisdiction under s.44 Arbitration Act 1996 for continuation of injunctions
  2. 2 Material non-disclosure in without notice applications
  3. 3 Entitlement to interim specific performance for sale of unascertained goods

Ratio Decidendi

The court lacked jurisdiction to continue the injunctions post-urgency absent tribunal permission or written agreement; once tribunal permission was granted, the WFO was continued despite material non-disclosure, which was peripheral and not prejudicial, but the Cargo Injunction was discharged as specific performance for unascertained goods was not justified in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

WFO continued until termination of arbitration; Cargo Injunction discharged; Polar Rock sale application refused.

Orders

  • Continue WFO with amendment to paragraph 7(2)
  • Discharge Cargo Injunction