United Company Rusal Plc v MB & Services Ltd and Golovina [2020] JCA 136 (10 July 2020)

United Company Rusal Plc v MB & Services Ltd and Golovina [2020] JCA 136 (10 July 2020)

Leave to appeal was refused because Rusal's proposed appeal had no real prospect of success. The Royal Court's evaluation that there was a real risk the plaintiffs would not obtain justice in Russia was well within the range of reasonable conclusions on the evidence, and there was no misdirection or error in principle. The case did not raise any point of general principle or important question of law warranting leave.

Citation
[2020] JCA 136
Parties
Appellant/defendant: United Company Rusal Plc; Respondent/plaintiff: MB & Services Ltd; Respondent/plaintiff: Tatiana Golovina
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
10 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal (procedural) / Application for Leave to Appeal to Court of Appeal From Royal Court Decision
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Forum Non Conveniens, Stay of Proceedings, Jurisdiction, Risk of Injustice in Foreign Forum
Civil Procedure Private International Law Forum Non Conveniens Stay of Proceedings Jurisdiction Risk of Injustice in Foreign Forum

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

United Company Rusal Plc

Appellant/defendant

MB & Services Ltd

Respondent/plaintiff

Tatiana Golovina

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal (procedural) / Application for Leave to Appeal to Court of Appeal From Royal Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the Royal Court's refusal to stay proceedings on the ground of forum non conveniens
  2. 2 Whether there is a real risk that the plaintiffs will not obtain justice in Russia

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because Rusal's proposed appeal had no real prospect of success. The Royal Court's evaluation that there was a real risk the plaintiffs would not obtain justice in Russia was well within the range of reasonable conclusions on the evidence, and there was no misdirection or error in principle. The case did not raise any point of general principle or important question of law warranting leave.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; application dismissed.