![[2025] EWHC 1368 (Comm)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_WAai98v.png){kind=logo}
The evidence
The evidence
The court has factual witness statements from the English lawyers retained by the parties – Satindar Singh Dogra of Linklaters LLP for the Claimants and Anthony Riem of PCB Byrne LLP for VTB.
In addition the court has expert evidence on Russian law:
for the Claimants, from Drew Holiner, who practises from Monckton Chambers and has been qualified and admitted to practice law as an advocate in Russia since 2002; and
for VTB, from Professor Mikhail Zinovievich Schwartz, Professor and Head of the Department of Civil Procedure at Saint Petersburg State University.
There was no oral evidence, and while the expert reports were referred to in the parties’ written arguments, they did not feature in the oral presentations.
B THE CONTRACTS
A number of contracts (or alleged contracts) are relevant to the applications before the court.
- Heading
- A INTRODUCTION
- The parties
- The evidence
- The UMAA
- The Client Agreement
- The ISDA Master Agreement
- The Terms
- The Correspondent Bank Account
- C THE BACKGROUND
- Proceedings in the Russian courts
- D THE “WHOLLY CONTRACTUAL” ANTI-SUIT CLAIMS
- The UMAA and the Client Agreement
- The 2017 Terms
- Which of the JPM Entities are entitled to enforce the 2017 Terms Arbitration Agreement?
- What is the effect of the contractual hierarchy provisions on the status of the 2017 Terms Arbitration Agreement in relation to the various claims brought by VTB?
- The ISDA Master Agreement
- E THE APPLICATION BY A CONTRACTING PARTY TO RESTRAIN CLAIMS AGAINST NON-CONTRACTING PARTIES AS A MATTER OF CONTRACT
- Contractual promises not to sue third parties
- Cases where a third party seeks to enforce a contractual right which is subject to an arbitration agreement
- The special status of arbitration agreements under English law
- The authorities
- The construction argument
- An implied term
- F THE APPLICATION TO RESTRAIN CLAIMS ON THE “VEXATIOUS AND OPPRESSIVE” BASIS
- The UMAA and Client Agreement Claims
- The ISDA Claim
- G SHOULD THE COURT REFUSE TO MAKE THE INJUNCTION IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS DISCRETION?
- H THE CLAIM FOR AN ANTI-ENFORCEMENT INJUNCTION
- I VTB’S CHALLENGE TO JURISDICTION
- Forum non conveniens
- Alternative service
- Conclusions