Bank St Petersburg PJSC & Anor v Arkhangelsky & Anor [2020] EWCA Civ 408 (18 March 2020)

Bank St Petersburg PJSC & Anor v Arkhangelsky & Anor [2020] EWCA Civ 408 (18 March 2020)

The judge applied the correct standard of proof (balance of probabilities) for dishonesty and conspiracy. The evidence did not justify an inference of dishonesty or conspiracy, and the appellants failed to discharge the burden of proof. The judge's approach was methodical, and the findings of fact were not plainly wrong. The delay did not render the judgment unsafe. The counterclaim was properly dismissed, and negative declarations were rightly refused.

Citation
[2020] EWCA Civ 408
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Bank St Petersburg PJSC; Claimant/respondent: Alexander Savelyev; Defendant/appellant: Vitaly Arkhangelsky; Defendant/appellant: Julia Arkhangelskaya; Additional Party/appellant: Oslo Marine Group Ports LLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment upheld.
Legal Topics
Standard of Proof, Dishonesty, Conspiracy, Burden of Proof, Russian Law, Asset Seizure, Auction Sales, Declaratory Relief
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Banking Law Standard of Proof Dishonesty Conspiracy Burden of Proof Russian Law +3 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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bank St Petersburg PJSC

Claimant/respondent

Alexander Savelyev

Claimant/respondent

Vitaly Arkhangelsky

Defendant/appellant

Julia Arkhangelskaya

Defendant/appellant

Oslo Marine Group Ports LLC

Additional Party/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the judge apply the correct standard of proof for dishonesty and conspiracy?
  2. 2 Was the judge's approach to the evidence piecemeal and inconsistent?
  3. 3 Was Baltic Fuel Company owned or controlled by the respondents?

Ratio Decidendi

The judge applied the correct standard of proof (balance of probabilities) for dishonesty and conspiracy. The evidence did not justify an inference of dishonesty or conspiracy, and the appellants failed to discharge the burden of proof. The judge's approach was methodical, and the findings of fact were not plainly wrong. The delay did not render the judgment unsafe. The counterclaim was properly dismissed, and negative declarations were rightly refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment upheld.

Orders

  • Counterclaim dismissed.
  • No negative declarations granted.