header-logo header-logo

17 February 2017
Issue: 7734 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Conflict of laws

Khrapunov v JSC BTA Bank; JSC BTA Bank v Khrapunov [2017] EWCA Civ 40, [2017] All ER (D) 42 (Feb)

The Court of Appeal ruled, in a case concerning litigation between JSC BTA Bank and its former chairman’s son-in-law (I) that, among other things, contempt of court, in the form of breaches of court orders, qualified as unlawful means for the purposes of that tort. I’s appeal on the issue of whether the bank had established that it had a good arguable cause of action against him for the tort of conspiracy to injure by unlawful means was dismissed. The bank’s appeal concerning the lower court’s rulings on jurisdiction was dismissed in respect of two grounds. However, the bank’s appeal was allowed in respect of limb (b) of Art 5(3) of the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (the place of the event giving rise to damage).

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Kevin Joynes & Neil Gosling

Clarke Willmott—Kevin Joynes & Neil Gosling

Clarke Willmott bolsters housebuilder expertise in Birmingham

Carpmaels & Ransford—Kevin Cordina

Carpmaels & Ransford—Kevin Cordina

Firm adds former Simmons Simmons patent head to engineering and tech team

ACTAPS—Sally Goodger

ACTAPS—Sally Goodger

Freeths strengthens its voice in national disputes with ACTAPS committee appointment

NEWS
Some employment law controversies never disappear—they merely lie dormant
Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming legal practice, but its successful adoption depends as much on culture as technology
The fallout from Lord Mandelson’s appointment and dismissal as UK ambassador to Washington raises profound questions about constitutional governance, accountability and political appointments
Pastries may be in the firing line while kebabs escape scrutiny, but the reality is far more nuanced
The Supreme Court’s decision in Dillon highlights a central tension in modern public law: rights may be recognised without being fully realised
back-to-top-scroll