Bank St Petersburg PJSC & Anor v Arkhangelsky & Anor

Bank St Petersburg PJSC & Anor v Arkhangelsky & Anor

The judge applied too high a standard of proof for dishonesty, failed to consider factual findings in the round, and created inconsistencies, rendering the judgment unsafe. The appeal is allowed and the matter remitted for retrial on the counterclaim.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Bank St Petersburg PJSC; Claimant/respondent: Alexander Savelyev; Defendant/appellant: Vitaly Arkhangelsky; Defendant/appellant: Julia Arkhangelskaya; Defendant/appellant: Oslo Marine Group Ports LLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment set aside; matter remitted for retrial before a new judge.
Legal Topics
Standard of Proof, Dishonesty, Conspiracy, Burden of Proof, Russian Law, Illegality, Valuation of Assets, Auction Sales, Abuse of Rights
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Banking Law Standard of Proof Dishonesty Conspiracy Burden of Proof Russian Law +4 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 11 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

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the judge apply the wrong standard of proof for dishonesty?
  2. 2 Did the judge adopt a piecemeal approach to factual determination?
  3. 3 Was the finding on Baltic Fuel Company ownership erroneous?

Ratio Decidendi

The judge applied too high a standard of proof for dishonesty, failed to consider factual findings in the round, and created inconsistencies, rendering the judgment unsafe. The appeal is allowed and the matter remitted for retrial on the counterclaim.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment set aside; matter remitted for retrial before a new judge.

Orders

  • Remit counterclaim to a new judge for reconsideration of liability under Article 1064 Russian Civil Code.
  • No new evidence except on auction sales, valuation, and respondents' motives unless permitted by the new judge.