Arbitration analysis: This case involved an application to Commercial Court of the City of St Petersburg and Leningrad Region (the ‘Russian Court’) to prohibit initiation or continuation of legal proceedings in a foreign court and in the international arbitration, seated outside RF. The claimant, a Russian company, commenced proceedings in the Russian Court against the Respondent for breach of contract, despite the existence of the valid ICC arbitration agreement between the parties. The Respondent obtained an anti-suit injunction from the English court, however, the Russian Court proceeded to uphold the claimant’s claim, and, furthermore, awarded the claimant its application for an anti-suit injunction against the Respondent, as well as ordered the Respondent to pay punitive damages to the claimant. Written by Irina Tymczyszyn FCIArb, arbitrator and counsel, Tymczyszyn Arbitration.

The purpose of registering is to allow enforcement in the latter jurisdiction based on a court order (judgment) from the former. The procedure for enforcing judgments from Scotland is set out in sections 18 and 19 and Schedules 6 and 7 to the Civil Jurisdiction

An assured shorthold tenancy (AST) with the protection of the Housing Act 1988 (HA 1988) can only be brought to an end by the landlord by a court order following the service of a notice alleging a breach of its terms, or by a notice under HA 1988, s 21. This question raises the issue of how such a notice should be served. HA 1988, s 21 envisages that notices can be served to take effect in two circumstances: following the end of a fixed contractual term or during a periodic tenancy. In each case, it is provided that to make the possession order the court must be satisfied that 'the landlord or, in the case of joint landlords, at least one of them has given to the tenant not less than two months' notice in writing'. It is necessary therefore to consider the requirements

In a case such as this, where the claimant has sued the wrong defendant, should the defendant: • acknowledge service and then dispute the court’s jurisdiction? If so, on what grounds would the defendant dispute jurisdiction? • acknowledge service and file and serve a defence and then apply for strike out on the basis that the statement of claim is defective in that it names the wrong defendant? • acknowledge service and file and serve a defence and then apply for summary judgment? What would be the basis for summary judgment? In a scenario such as this, where a party has brought a claim against another party against whom they have no basis to claim, it is likely that the court will strike out

Valid execution of a transfer by an attorney The requirements of HM Land Registry (HMLR) for the execution of a transfer by an attorney are set out in the Land Registration Rules 2003, SI 2003/1417, rr 61–63 and in HM Land Registry Practice Guide 9: powers of attorney and registered land. These requirements mean that an application to register a transfer executed by an attorney under an ordinary power of attorney (as opposed to a lasting power of attorney) must include either the original power, a copy of the power by means of which its contents

Financial Services analysis: Victims of APP fraud have long searched for a viable way of claiming recompense from banks involved in the transactions. Recent efforts have focused on the Quincecare duty. This quest for the Northwest Passage of the banking fraud world has largely been in vain. Hamblin v Moorwand shows one way through the polar ice: a derivative claim on behalf of a defrauded company involved in the payment chain. But that route may be best left to the brave. Simon Oakes, barrister at Quadrant Chambers.

Long residence and private life resources—overview notes that the ten-year long residence route found in the Immigration Rules, Part 7 does not permit ‘dependants to apply with the main applicant, although dependants can apply in their own right if they meet the requirements of the relevant rule. For example, if a husband and wife have both been in the UK lawfully for ten years continuously, they would each need to submit their own separate applications under the long residence provisions.’ Immigration Rules, Part 7, para 276B–276C. Where a Tier 2 (General) migrant obtains indefinite leave to remain (ILR) under the long residence rules, it may be open to their spouse to apply for leave to remain as the spouse

The structure of a settlement by way of a Tomlin Order is for there to be a general stay of proceedings on the terms agreed between the parties as set out in a schedule to the Order, with provision for an application to be brought to enforce and/or effect the terms of the settlement. In Bostani and others v Pieper and another Jacobs J considered an application to lift a stay and enter judgment pursuant to the terms of a Tomlin Order following a breach of the settlement terms. The case is important insofar as it held that the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980),

Whether or not the relevant Tomlin order is broad enough to include costs will depend on the particular circumstances. In particular, the Court of Appeal in Leslie v NGN considered the scope of a compromise embodied in a Tomlin order in respect of the claimant's first claim in relation to the 'phone hacking' scandal, following the commencement of a second claim by the claimant

This Q&A does not consider the situation where the goods are in a fiscal warehousing regime (under which certain goods may be traded in a VAT-free regime under arrangements approved for this purpose by HMRC, see sections 18A–18F of the Value Added Tax Act 1994). UK VAT (known in this context as acquisition tax) is charged on an acquisition of goods from another EU Member State if: • the supplier is (or should be) VAT registered in another EU country and

For the purposes of this Q&A, we have not considered the provisions within the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA), as that is not directly enforceable, and it is for the UK to implement its provisions (to the extent not already implemented under the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020). For further information,

The question pre-supposes that the income and gains of the company are taxable on the settlor under the anti-avoidance legislation applicable to transfers of assets abroad. This will happen if the settlor or their spouse (or both) are able to benefit from the trust. In practice, this was rare, but is now less so because of the rules for ‘formerly domiciled residents’ introduced in the Finance Act 2017. Under the transfer of assets abroad rules, relief from a double charge to income tax is given where the transferor subsequently receives income on which they have already paid tax under those rules. Suppose the offshore company was directly owned by the settlor and paid a dividend using income it had received.