Bitesize know how from the English Courts
Knowledge Counsel London
"The December Orders have the form of procedural orders and that reflects the reality…. They are not, therefore, awards."
Arbitration
The Commercial Court has confirmed that it does not have jurisdiction to grant a stay of arbitration proceedings under the general case management powers set out in CPR 3.1(2)(g). The dispute arose from contracts for the supply of artillery to Ukraine. The disputes had been referred to two LCIA arbitrations before a sole arbitrator. In a recent procedural order, the arbitrator refused to consolidate the arbitrations or permit oral examination of witnesses and experts. Party A challenged that decision under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 and applied to remove the arbitrator under section 24 of the same act. The court held that CPR 3.1(2)(g) only applied to court proceedings and so an application to stay the arbitration must fail under that rule. The court also confirmed, even though no proper evidence had been put forward, that the court could not make an injunction to restrain further steps in the arbitration proceedings pending an application to remove the arbitrator. In particular, section 24(3) expressly provides that the proceedings may continue pending such an application.
A v B [2026] EWHC 327 (Comm), 30 January 2026
Enforcement
The Commercial Court has assisted with enforcement of a Nigerian court judgment by ordering the appointment of receivers in relation to oil revenues by way of equitable execution. Eroton was liable to Brightwaters for around US$16.5m. The Nigerian judgment had been registered in England after various unsuccessful attempts to enforce the judgment in Nigeria. Brightwaters learned that Eroton had agreed to supply a company with 32,000 barrels of oil a day from a Nigerian oilfield. Eroton was ordered by the English court to provide information about the revenues due to it from the sale of oil and to do nothing to diminish the value of those revenues. Eroton provided some information but insufficient to satisfy the order, which led to the application for appointment of receivers. The court rejected a number of arguments against the receivership put forward by Eroton, including that Brightwaters had elected to enforce judgment in Nigeria, there was insufficient connection with this jurisdiction and it would prejudice GT Bank (another creditor of Eroton and beneficiary of an all assets debenture). The court held that it would be just and convenient to make the order and would promote the policy of English law that court judgments should be complied with.
Contract interpretation
The Commercial Court has upheld a ‘no set off’ clause in an agreement governed by Dutch law. Necto Future Group Limited was liable to the claimant for around £3m under a contract governed by Dutch law. The defendant was guarantor of the payment of that debt. When the claimant sought to enforce that debt against the defendant, it raised a defence of set off of a damages claim that Necto had against the claimant. The court heard evidence of Dutch law and concluded that there was no real prospect of the defendant establishing that the no set off clause should not be applied. The court granted summary judgment to the claimant on the basis that the defendant had no real prospect of defending the claim.
CM Telecom UK Ltd v Buck [2026] EWHC 161 (Comm), 11 February 2026
Sanctions – service
The Court of Appeal has concluded that an individual who is designated under the Russian sanctions regime and excluded from the UK under the Immigration Act 1971, could not have proceedings served at a London property that he owned. Mr Fridman was registered proprietor of Athlone House. However, his assets had been frozen under the sanctions regime, his leave to remain in the UK was cancelled and he is not permitted to enter the UK. Under CPR 6.9 a claim form can be served at someone’s “usual or last known residence”. The court held that because Mr Fridman was not in the jurisdiction at the time of service and not permitted to enter the jurisdiction, the claim form had not been validly served. It was not simply a temporary absence. The common law principle that a person may only be served with process in England and Wales if they are present in England and Wales is not just a matter of procedure. It is a principle of jurisdiction founded in international law and the principle of territoriality.
Fridman v Agrofirma Oniks LLC and another company [2026] EWCA Civ 139, 19 February 2026
Key contacts
Knowledge Counsel London
Partner London
