Bank St Petersburg & Anor v Arkhangelsky & Ors

Bank St Petersburg & Anor v Arkhangelsky & Ors

The court dismissed the applications for declarations and variation of the freezing order, finding insufficient evidence of undisclosed assets and risk of irremediable injustice to Defendants. The surrender of the Policy and payments from Petrograd's account did not constitute unequivocal breaches. Amendments to pleadings were allowed subject to conditions. Counterclaims alleging intimidation and politically motivated persecution were not struck out as non-justiciable but required further particularisation. Scope of expert evidence was limited to specific issues.

Parties
Claimant: Bank St Petersburg; Claimant: Alexander Savelyev; Defendant: Vitaly Arkhangelsky; Defendant: Julia Arkhangelskaya; Part 20 Claimant: Oslo Marine Ports LLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Judgment on Applications for Declarations, Variation of Freezing Order, Amendments to Pleadings, and Strike Out of Counterclaims
Outcome
Applications for declarations and variation of freezing order dismissed; amendments to pleadings allowed with conditions; strike-out of counterclaims denied subject to further particularisation; scope of expert evidence limited; timetable for exchange of evidence extended.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Asset Disclosure, Amendment of Pleadings, Strike Out Applications, Act of State Doctrine, Expert Evidence
Civil Procedure Commercial Law International Law Freezing Orders Asset Disclosure Amendment of Pleadings Strike Out Applications Act of State Doctrine +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 6 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bank St Petersburg

Claimant

Alexander Savelyev

Claimant

Vitaly Arkhangelsky

Defendant

Julia Arkhangelskaya

Defendant

Oslo Marine Ports LLC

Part 20 Claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Judgment on Applications for Declarations, Variation of Freezing Order, Amendments to Pleadings, and Strike Out of Counterclaims

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether surrender of a French life insurance policy and payments from a Bulgarian company account breached the English worldwide freezing order
  2. 2 Whether the court should grant declarations of breach or vary the freezing order
  3. 3 Whether proposed amendments to pleadings should be allowed

Ratio Decidendi

The court dismissed the applications for declarations and variation of the freezing order, finding insufficient evidence of undisclosed assets and risk of irremediable injustice to Defendants. The surrender of the Policy and payments from Petrograd's account did not constitute unequivocal breaches. Amendments to pleadings were allowed subject to conditions. Counterclaims alleging intimidation and politically motivated persecution were not struck out as non-justiciable but required further particularisation. Scope of expert evidence was limited to specific issues.

Court Disposition

Applications for declarations and variation of freezing order dismissed; amendments to pleadings allowed with conditions; strike-out of counterclaims denied subject to further particularisation; scope of expert evidence limited; timetable for exchange of evidence extended.

Orders

  • Claimants' applications for declarations and variation of freezing order dismissed.
  • Permission granted for Claimants to amend Particulars of Claim and Reply, subject to conditions on expert evidence and pleading clarification.