Mints and others (Appellants) v PJSC National Bank Trust and another (Respondents)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2023/0146

Parties

Appellant(s)

(1) Boris Mints, (2) Dmitry Mints, (3) Alexander Mints, (4) Igor Mints

Respondent(s)

(1) PJSC National Bank Trust, (2) PJSC Bank Otkritie Financial Corporation

Issue

Can an English court legally enter a judgment debt in favour of a party that is subject to UK Government sanctions?

Facts

The Respondents are Russian banks. In June 2019, the Respondents brought a claim for US$850 million against the Appellants (amongst other parties). The Respondents allege that the Appellants fraudulently conspired to cause the Respondents to enter uncommercial transactions. In July 2019, the High Court made a worldwide freezing order against the Appellants’ assets. This was later replaced by undertakings from the Appellants which had a similar effect. The litigation was proceeding towards a trial (listed for 2025) when, on 24 February 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine. Following the invasion, the Second Respondent was quickly sanctioned by the UK Government. The First Respondent was not directly sanctioned, but the Appellants argue it is owned or controlled by sanctioned individuals (including Vladimir Putin) within the meaning of the relevant sanctions regulations. On this basis, the Appellants applied to the High Court for an indefinite stay of the Respondents’ claim against them and a release from their undertakings. The Appellants argued that an English court could not legally enter a judgment in favour of the Respondents, as creating a judgment debt in favour of the Respondents would put the court itself in breach of the sanctions regulations. The High Court dismissed the Appellants’ application for an indefinite stay but granted permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the Appellants’ appeal. The Appellants now seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court

Date of issue

14 November 2023

Judgment appealed

Back to top