Yukos Capital S.a.r.l v OJSC Rosneft Oil Company & Ors [2010] EWHC 784 (Comm) (16 April 2010)

Yukos Capital S.a.r.l v OJSC Rosneft Oil Company & Ors [2010] EWHC 784 (Comm) (16 April 2010)

The court held that the jurisdiction to grant freezing orders is not confined to assets beneficially owned by the defendant but may extend to assets held by third parties where the defendant has substantive control or entitlement, and that it was just and convenient to continue the freezing order in this case, subject to amendments, as the RT companies' accounts were effectively conduits for Rosneft's funds.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 784 (Comm)
Parties
Applicant/claimant: Yukos Capital S.a.r.l; Respondent/defendant: OJSC Rosneft Oil Company; Respondent/defendant: Rosneft International Limited; Respondent/defendant: Trumpet Limited; Respondent/defendant: Rosneft Investments Limited; Respondent/defendant: Anglo Siberian Oil Company Limited; Respondent: R Trade 2 Limited; Respondent: R Trade 3 Limited; Respondent: R Trade 4 Limited; Respondent: R Trade 5 Limited; Respondent: R Trade 6 Limited; Respondent: R Trade 7 Limited; Respondent: R Trade 8 Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 April 2010
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application / Application to Discharge or Vary Freezing Order
Outcome
Application to discharge the freezing order refused (subject to amendments); no order made due to settlement.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Third Party Assets, Jurisdiction of English Courts, Enforcement of Arbitration Awards
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Freezing Injunctions Third Party Assets Jurisdiction of English Courts Enforcement of Arbitration Awards

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yukos Capital S.a.r.l

Applicant/claimant

OJSC Rosneft Oil Company

Respondent/defendant

Rosneft International Limited

Respondent/defendant

Trumpet Limited

Respondent/defendant

Rosneft Investments Limited

Respondent/defendant

Anglo Siberian Oil Company Limited

Respondent/defendant

R Trade 2 Limited

Respondent

R Trade 3 Limited

Respondent

R Trade 4 Limited

Respondent

R Trade 5 Limited

Respondent

R Trade 6 Limited

Respondent

R Trade 7 Limited

Respondent

R Trade 8 Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application / Application to Discharge or Vary Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to grant a freezing order over assets held by third parties not beneficially owned by the defendant
  2. 2 Whether the freezing order should be discharged or varied in light of new evidence and arguments

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the jurisdiction to grant freezing orders is not confined to assets beneficially owned by the defendant but may extend to assets held by third parties where the defendant has substantive control or entitlement, and that it was just and convenient to continue the freezing order in this case, subject to amendments, as the RT companies' accounts were effectively conduits for Rosneft's funds.

Court Disposition

Application to discharge the freezing order refused (subject to amendments); no order made due to settlement.