Open Joint Stock Company Alfa-Bank v Georgy Trefilov

On a summary judgment application to enforce a foreign judgment, the defendant must show a realistic, rather than fanciful, prospect of establishing a recognised defence. The court may analyse witness evidence and contemporaneous documents sufficiently to determine whether an asserted case has real substance, while avoiding a mini-trial.

A natural justice objection requires substantial injustice. Where the defendant agreed a method of service, received or had the opportunity to receive notice, and had an available foreign appeal or other remedy, failure to advance a defence in the foreign proceedings will ordinarily prevent its later use in England. The fraud exception is carefully confined. A possible allegation requiring investigation does not itself create a compelling reason for trial where the proposed defence has no realistic prospect of success.

The claimant sought summary judgment enforcing a final Russian judgment for 371,408,563.97 roubles against the defendant, whose liability arose under a guarantee of a company’s indebtedness. The defendant accepted that the Russian judgment was final and conclusive and that the Russian court had jurisdiction.

He nevertheless alleged that the Russian proceedings violated natural justice, that the Russian court had been given materially misleading information, and that the document relied on was not the guarantee he had signed. He also contended that the circumstances raised a compelling reason for a trial to investigate fraud. The central questions were whether those contentions had a realistic prospect of success and whether there was any sufficient reason to defer summary determination.

1. Summary judgment. The court applied the established Part 24 test. The defendant had to show a realistic prospect of success, carrying some degree of conviction, or a compelling reason for trial. The court was entitled to test factual assertions against contemporaneous documents and surrounding conduct, provided it did not conduct a mini-trial.
2. Natural justice. The defendant had agreed that notices under the guarantee could be sent to his registered address. The evidence showed that the address was used in related documents, that a demand reached him, and that notice of the Russian hearing was certified as served. His appointed lawyer acknowledged receipt of the hearing notice. The defendant therefore had notice and a substantial opportunity to present his case. His failure to attend or to raise the alleged guarantee terms was a conscious choice, not a denial of natural justice.
3. Potential defences based on conversations about the guarantee or the application of proceeds from the later transaction should have been advanced in the Russian proceedings. The defendant had in fact pursued an appeal and other procedural steps. In those circumstances, such defences could not subsequently be deployed to resist enforcement.
4. Fraud and investigation. The alleged substitution of a false guarantee, if established, would fall within the fraud exception. That exception remained carefully delimited. Disclosure and a trial were not justified merely to investigate whether a fraud defence might succeed. The defendant’s evidence and conduct made the allegation fanciful and supplied no compelling reason to proceed.
5. The claimant was entitled to judgment for 368,270,686.83 roubles with statutory interest. The claim for contractual interest was not pursued.