Legal News

Commercial Court declines jurisdiction over conspiracy claims in arbitration claim proceedings (VTB v JSC Antipinsky)

Published on: 13 July 2021
Published by: LexisPSL
  • Commercial Court declines jurisdiction over conspiracy claims in arbitration claim proceedings (VTB v JSC Antipinsky)
  • What are the practical implications of this case?
  • What was the background?
  • What did the court decide?
  • Case details

Article summary

Arbitration analysis: In proceedings on an arbitration claim under CPR 62, to bring additional claims under CPR 20 against two third parties, Mrs Justice Cockerill held that the court had no jurisdiction to permit the additional claims. Her reasoning was that, despite having to defend a claim on its cross-undertaking in damages, the claimant was not to be regarded as a ‘defendant’ to proceedings and therefore could not use CPR 20. The decision analyses when a party is to be regarded as ‘claimant’ or ‘defendant’ in different procedural situations. The judge also considered, without deciding, whether it was at all possible to commence CPR 20 proceedings in respect of an arbitration claim. She held that in any event Russia, not England, was the proper forum for the parties’ dispute. In so holding, the judge considered whether and when the risk of parallel proceedings and irreconcilable decisions was a ‘trump card’ in determining the proper forum for a dispute. Written by Christopher Boyne, partner at Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, and Georgina Petrova, barrister at Brick Court Chambers. or take a trial to read the full analysis.

Popular documents