JSC BTA Bank (Respondent) v Khrapunov (Appellant)
Case ID: UKSC 2017/0043
- Is it permissible to maintain a claim for unlawful means conspiracy where the only unlawful means relied on are acts which are said to be unlawful only because they are breaches of court orders?
- For the purposes of establishing jurisdiction under limb (b) of Article 5(3) of the Lugano Convention 2007, is the place of the "event giving rise to [the damage]" the place where the conspiratorial agreement was made, or the place where the lawful means were executed?
The respondent bank had obtained a worldwide freezing order (WFO) and a receivership order, as well as money judgments, against Mr Ablyazov. On 17 July 2015 it issued a claim form for the tort of unlawful means conspiracy against both Mr Ablyazov and the appellant (Mr Ablyazov’s son-in-law), alleging that they conspired together to injure the respondent by preventing it from enforcing its judgments against Mr Ablyazov’s assets. The unlawful means are alleged by the respondent to be dealings with such assets in breach of the freezing and receivership orders. The respondent subsequently obtained a WFO against the appellant.
JSC BTA Bank
Lord Mance, Lord Sumption, Lord Hodge, Lady Black, Lord Lloyd-Jones
Hearing start date
24 Jan 2018
Hearing finish date
25 Jan 2018