[2025] EWHC 1368 (Comm)

Fecha: 05-Jun-2025

The parties

The parties

The Claimants

JPMS plc is an English company, and a subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase & Co, an international financial services firm incorporated in Delaware and with its headquarters in New York.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“JPMCB”) has an authorised London branch (“JPMCB London”) and its role in these proceedings concerns business conducted through that branch. An issue was raised by Mr Fenwick KC with which it is convenient to deal at this point, which arises because the proceedings were issued in the name of a branch of JPMCB (just as they had previously been issued by VTB against that branch). Mr Fenwick KC submitted that as the branch is not a legal entity, this involved issuing a claim in the name of a non-existent entity. There is nothing in this point:

I accept that a branch of a bank in a particular jurisdiction does not, by reason of its branch identity alone, constitute a separate legal entity. It would be different if the branch business was conducted by an incorporated subsidiary.

ii)

However, the location of a branch is of obvious importance for regulatory purposes, different branches in different jurisdictions being subject to different national regulatory regimes, which assess their solvency, regulatory capital requirements etc in many respects on a “stand alone” basis.

iii)

For that reason, it is very common for proceedings concerning the business of a particular branch of a bank to reflect that fact in the title. A quick database search revealed nearly 100 examples of a “London branch” of a bank being named as claimant or defendant.

iv)

In this case, there can be no doubt that the proceedings were commenced by the legal entity JPMCB, in respect of business conducted through its London branch.

In any event, JPMCB has now been named as a claimant without a branch designation.

JPMS plc and JPMCB using the London branch designation are the first and second claimants in CL-2024-00671 and the second and first claimants in CL-2024-000672. JPMCB (without the London branch designation) is also named as the third claimant in each action.

As to the other claimants:

JPM Russia is a company incorporated in Russia, and the fourth claimant in both claims.

ii)

JP Morgan Chase & Co is the fifth claimant in both claims and has its address in New York.

iii)

J.P. Morgan Capital Holdings Limited is the sixth claimant in both claims and has its address in London.

iv)

J.P. Morgan Limited is the seventh claimant in both claims and has its address in London.

J.P. Morgan International Finance Limited is the eighth claimant in both claims and has its address in Delaware.

vi)

JPMorgan Emerging Europe, Middle East and Africa Securities Plc is the ninth claimant in both claims and has its address in London.

On 7 May 2025, JPM Russia filed notices of discontinuance of its claims. It has been suggested by VTB that the court’s permission is required for JPM Russia to discontinue because JPM Russia’s claim is one “in relation to which … the court has granted an interim injunction” (cf CPR 38.2(2)(a)(i)). In this case, JPM Russia has not itself obtained any injunctive relief, but such relief has been obtained by other claimants which extends to proceedings against JPM Russia.

I am satisfied that CPR 38.2(2)(a)(i) does not apply to a claimant who has not itself obtained interim injunctive relief, simply because another claimant has. In Kazakhstan Kagazy plc v Zhunus [2016] EWHC 2363 (Comm), a freezing order was obtained which initially extended to Manx law claims brought by the first claimant (who had also brought Kazakh law claims), but the Manx law claims were later excluded from the scope of the order. Leggatt J held that the court’s permission was not required to discontinue the Manx law claims, holding at [26] that “permission of the court is required only when the subject matter of the injunction includes whatever claim or part of a claim it is that the clamant wishes to discontinue”, continuing:

“In such circumstances it may be necessary to consider whether the injunction should be discharged or varied, so the claimant cannot simply be allowed to discontinue without having such issues sorted out. Such issues do not arise where the claimant wishes only to discontinue a part of its claim which falls outside the scope of the injunction.”

10.

The present case falls squarely within the last sentence. In any event, even if permission had been required, I can see no reason not to grant it.

11.

I will refer to all of the Claimants as “the JPM Entities”, save that the use of that term in relation to orders of this court after JPM Russia’s discontinuance does not include JPM Russia.

VTB

12.

VTB is a major Russia bank. It is majority state-owned.