![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
England and Wales High Court (Commercial Court) Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Commercial Court) Decisions >> Bayerische Landesbank & Ors v RusChemAlliance LLC (Rev1) [2025] EWHC 924 (Comm) (11 April 2025) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2025/924.html Cite as: [2025] EWHC 924 (Comm), [2025] WLR(D) 258 |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable PDF version]
[View ICLR summary: [2025] WLR(D) 258]
[Help]
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
COMMERCIAL COURT
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
Bayerische ![]() Landesbank ![]() Commerzbank AG |
Claimants |
|
- and - |
||
RusChemAlliance LLC |
Defendant |
____________________
Mr Siddharth Dhar KC, Mr Stuart Cribb and Mr Edward Batrouney (instructed by Freshfields LLP) for the Claimants, Bayerische Landesbank
Landesbank
and Baden-Württemberg
Mr Mikhail Sondor (instructed by ELWI), for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 11.04.2025
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
MR JUSTICE FOXTON
"I have decided that I would vary not discharge the Court of Appeal's order. It seems to me that it would be unsatisfactory to discharge the parts of the order that reflect the decisions on jurisdiction made by the Court of Appeal and the United Kingdom Supreme Court. There is no need to do so. Under English law this court did, indeed, have jurisdiction to determine what it determined, and its final orders reflecting that decision must stand. The injunctive parts of the Court of Appeal's order at paragraphs 8 to 11 are those that should be discharged. The parties can inform the court if there are other paragraphs that support those paragraphs that should be removed as a consequence".
"I have decided that there is power to revoke or vary the Court of Appeal's order in the circumstances of this case under CPR Part 3.17, and that the court should make an order varying the Court of Appeal's order so as to revoke the injunctive parts of it, leaving in place the declaratory parts as to the jurisdiction of the English court which form the subject of the United Kingdom Supreme Court's decision".