Commercial Disputes Weekly Issue 295 5 August 2026

INSOLVENCY

The Supreme Court has confirmed that a bankruptcy petition could be based on a Russian judgment, even where it had not been recognised by a court in England and Wales. One of the requirements for presenting a bankruptcy petition under section 267 of the Insolvency Act 1986 was that there be a debt owed by the debtor to the petitioning creditor. The Supreme Court held that the judgment did not need to go through the process of being recognised in the English courts for it to be regarded as a debt. Where the judgment was final and conclusive for a definite sum of money, it gave rise to an immediate obligation at common law for the debtor to pay the sum due. ‘Debt’ under section 267 was interpreted widely and would include this unregistered judgment.

Servis-Terminal LLC v Drelle [2026] UKSC 29, 27 July 2026

STATE IMMUNITY

The Supreme Court has decided that a claim form and particulars of claim can be served out of the jurisdiction on the Kingdom of Bahrain (“Bahrain”). The claim relates to alleged personal injury suffered by two individuals after spyware was installed on their computers in the UK, causing them psychiatric harm when they learned of the spyware. The spyware had been allegedly installed by agents of Bahrain from a computer located abroad. Bahrain claimed that the English courts did not have jurisdiction because of state immunity. However, the Supreme Court held that an exception to state immunity applied where personal injury was caused by an act or omission in the UK (section 5 State Immunity Act 1978). It was not relevant that the person who caused the injury was located outside the UK. Hacking into a computer in the UK was interference with territorial sovereignty of the UK.

Bahrain v Shehabi [2026] UKSC 25, 27 July 2026

ENFORCEMENT

The High Court has dismissed an application by Aerotron for refusal of recognition and enforcement of two Maltese judgment against it. The judgments arose out of a dispute relating to termination of an aircraft lease. The lessee, Hermes, successfully claimed damages for flight cancellations and costs incurred to maintenance providers. Aerotron submitted that the judgments should not be enforced because there was a real risk of double jeopardy resulting from various issues relating to Hermes’s parent company. This would be contrary to English public policy. The court was not convinced that a risk of double payment would be contrary to public policy, but held that even if it was, there was no such real risk in this case.

Aerotron Ltd v Hermes Aviation Ltd [2026] EWHC 1879 (KB), 23 July 2026

ENFORCEMENT

The Commercial Court has ordered that a Chinese judgment can be enforced by an action at common law in England and Wales. The dispute related to sums owed by the defendant to a company, Wenda, when the defendant was its chief financial officer, in relation to a subsidiary. The court rejected the defendant’s arguments that the judgment was not final and conclusive, and that it was impeachable because the Chinese court had failed to consider certain evidence so the proceedings were in breach of natural justice. The evidence indicated that the Chinese supervisory and judicial process had been exhausted and therefore within the meaning of English law, the judgment was final and conclusive. There was no breach of natural justice. The defendant could have applied to admit the relevant evidence at an earlier stage but did not do so. The Chinese court was entitled to reject the retrial application.

Wei and another company v Jinhong [2026] EWHC 1892 (Comm), 24 July 2026