2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Arkhangelskys pursued claims against the Bank of St. Petersburg in the English courts due to alleged breaches involving seized assets. Multiple interlocutory appeals addressed issues like service of proceedings, limitation periods, and enforcement of foreign judgments. The appeals court dismissed the first appeal, upheld the application disapplying the Russian limitation period, and granted an injunction to prevent the enforcement of Russian judgments, emphasizing the relevance of impecuniosity and the fairness of proceedings.
Judgment
Lord Justice Longmore:
Introduction
The court has to consider 3 interlocking interlocutory appeals arising out of (apparently so far successful) attempts by the Bank of St Petersburg (“the Bank”) and its chairman Mr Savelyev to wrest a large group of companies known as the Oslo Marine Group (“OMG”) from the control and majority ownership of Mr and Mrs Arkhangelsky. One of the many assets owned by Mr and Mrs Arkhangelsky, through their company Oslo Marine Group Ports LLC (“OMG Ports”) was part of the port of St Petersburg known as The Western Terminal. OMG had substantial debts owing to the Bank by the end of 2008; the Arkhangelskys assert that at about that time the Bank agreed to restructure the debts, not to demand repayment before the end of a six month moratorium, not to interfere in OMG’s day-to-day commercial activities, not to dispose of the Arkhangelskys’ shareholdings which were pledged in support of the loan and to return the pledged shareholdings once specified loans were repaid. They further allege that in breach of contract, the Bank demanded instant repayment, replaced the management of OMG companies and transferred the shareholdings to special purpose vehicles controlled by the Bank and/or Mr Savelyev who have obtained judgments in Russia in pursuance of these wrongful activities. They have sought to enforce those judgments in France and Bulgaria where it is believed there are assets. The Arkhangelskys by contrast brought claims against the Bank and Mr Savelyev and related parties in the British Virgin Islands and Cyprus for conspiracy, deceit and duress or intimidation pursuant to Article 1064 (the tort provision) of the Russian Civil Code. There were jurisdictional (or perhaps other) difficulties about those claims and it was agreed between the parties by an Exclusive Jurisdiction Agreement of 14 th December 2011 that the English court would have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the disputes between them.
Pursuant to this agreement the Arkhangelskys (who have now been granted a form of asylum in France) and OMG Ports began proceedings in the Commercial Court, issued by their then solicitors Bristows, on 22 nd December 2011 against the Bank, Mr Savelyev and other defendants but did not attempt to serve them until 23 rd July 2012. Meanwhile the Bank and Mr Savelyev instructed their solicitors, Baker & McKenzie, to issue proceedings against the Arkhangelskys in the Chancery Division claiming negative declaratory relief and als