VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp & Ors

VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp & Ors

English law does not recognise contractual liability by piercing the corporate veil in fraud cases; permission to amend to plead contract claims refused. VTB failed to show England is clearly the appropriate forum for tort claims; permission to serve out of jurisdiction set aside. WFO not continued as jurisdictional basis failed.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: VTB Capital PLC; Defendant/respondent: Nutritek International Corp; Defendant/respondent: Marshall Capital Holdings Ltd; Defendant/respondent: Marshall Capital LLC; Defendant/respondent: Konstantin Malofeev
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Piercing Corporate Veil, Jurisdiction, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Freezing Orders, Tort of Deceit, Conspiracy, Contractual Liability
Civil Procedure Company Law Conflict of Laws Piercing Corporate Veil Jurisdiction Service Out of Jurisdiction Freezing Orders Tort of Deceit +2 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 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

VTB Capital PLC

Claimant/appellant

Nutritek International Corp

Defendant/respondent

Marshall Capital Holdings Ltd

Defendant/respondent

Marshall Capital LLC

Defendant/respondent

Konstantin Malofeev

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether English law recognises contractual liability by piercing the corporate veil in fraud cases
  2. 2 Whether permission to serve out of jurisdiction should be granted for tort claims
  3. 3 Whether England is the appropriate forum for trial

Ratio Decidendi

English law does not recognise contractual liability by piercing the corporate veil in fraud cases; permission to amend to plead contract claims refused. VTB failed to show England is clearly the appropriate forum for tort claims; permission to serve out of jurisdiction set aside. WFO not continued as jurisdictional basis failed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Refusal of permission to amend to plead contract claims
  • Setting aside permission to serve proceedings out of jurisdiction