VTB Commodities Trading DAC v JSC Antipinsky Refinery

VTB Commodities Trading DAC v JSC Antipinsky Refinery

The court lacked jurisdiction to continue the injunctions after urgency ceased absent tribunal permission or written agreement, but exercised case management powers to adjourn and continue the orders pending tribunal permission, which was subsequently granted. Material non-disclosure by VTB was found but did not justify discharge of the WFO due to its peripheral relevance and lack of prejudice. The Cargo Injunction, amounting to specific performance for unascertained goods, was not continued as this was not an exceptional case justifying such relief. The order for sale of VGO aboard the Polar Rock was not continued as its basis fell with the discharge of the Cargo Injunction.

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 Arbitration Support / Injunction / Ruling on Continuation/discharge of Injunctions and Related Applications
Outcome
WFO continued; Cargo Injunction discharged; application for sale of Polar Rock VGO refused
Legal Topics
Section 44 Arbitration Act 1996, Worldwide Freezing Order, Specific Performance, Material Non Disclosure, Sale of Goods, Jurisdiction of English Courts
Arbitration Commercial Law Injunctions Section 44 Arbitration Act 1996 Worldwide Freezing Order Specific Performance Material Non Disclosure Sale of Goods +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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

VTB Commodities Trading DAC

Claimant

JSC Antipinsky Refinery

Defendant

Petraco Oil Company SA

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Commercial Arbitration Support / Injunction / Ruling on Continuation/discharge of Injunctions and Related Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court had jurisdiction under s.44 Arbitration Act 1996 to continue injunctions after urgency ceased
  2. 2 Whether material non-disclosure by VTB justified discharge of the injunctions
  3. 3 Whether an interim order for specific performance (Cargo Injunction) should be continued in relation to unascertained goods

Ratio Decidendi

The court lacked jurisdiction to continue the injunctions after urgency ceased absent tribunal permission or written agreement, but exercised case management powers to adjourn and continue the orders pending tribunal permission, which was subsequently granted. Material non-disclosure by VTB was found but did not justify discharge of the WFO due to its peripheral relevance and lack of prejudice. The Cargo Injunction, amounting to specific performance for unascertained goods, was not continued as this was not an exceptional case justifying such relief. The order for sale of VGO aboard the Polar Rock was not continued as its basis fell with the discharge of the Cargo Injunction.

Court Disposition

WFO continued; Cargo Injunction discharged; application for sale of Polar Rock VGO refused

Orders

  • Worldwide Freezing Order continued until termination of arbitration, subject to amendment of paragraph 7(2)
  • Cargo Injunction discharged