OJSC Bank of Moscow v Chernyakov & Ors

A foreign judgment for a definite sum may be enforced at common law where it is final and conclusive, subject to fraud, public policy and natural justice exceptions. A defendant resisting enforcement must show a realistic prospect of establishing such an exception or another compelling reason for trial. Natural justice requires a substantial denial of justice, not merely procedural imperfection. Where applicable foreign law deems notices delivered to a registered or agreed address, non-receipt does not necessarily establish unfairness. The court may grant summary judgment where the foreign proceedings, including available appeal procedures, afforded a fair opportunity to defend and the objections rest on speculation or unsupported allegations.

The Bank sought summary judgment to enforce three judgments of the Meshchansky District Court, Moscow, against Mr Chernyakov. The judgments, totalling approximately £150 million, arose from personal guarantees supporting loans and a bank guarantee given to companies in the Kosmos group.

Mr Chernyakov accepted jurisdiction but alleged that the Russian judgments were procured by fraud, obtained in breach of natural justice and Article 6(1) of the ECHR, contrary to public policy, and that there were compelling reasons for a trial. The central issues were whether those objections disclosed a real prospect of success and whether any other compelling reason required a trial.

1. Summary judgment. The court applied CPR 24.2. The relevant question was whether the defendant had a realistic, rather than fanciful, prospect of successfully resisting enforcement and whether any other compelling reason required a trial. The court had to avoid a mini-trial, but could reject assertions contradicted by contemporaneous documents or lacking substance.
2. Natural justice and notification. A foreign judgment may be impeached for a substantial denial of justice, but not for every procedural defect. The Russian courts had sent notices repeatedly to the Moscow address, which was Mr Chernyakov’s registered and contractual address, his passport address and the address used in his own court documents. Article 165 of the Russian Civil Code provided a proper basis for deemed delivery. The defendant bore the risk of failing to receive communications sent to that address.
3. The first judgment had also been reviewed on appeal, where Mr Chernyakov was represented and the notification issue was considered. The refusal to admit further evidence because it could have been produced earlier, and the rejection of the duress argument, did not disclose procedural unfairness. The second and third judgments likewise involved representation and an adequate opportunity to present the available case. The short preparation period did not create a triable issue in the circumstances.
4. Article 6, fraud and public policy. The Article 6 argument added nothing material to the natural justice case. Allegations of conspiracy, judicial interference and improper procurement were unsupported by sufficiently cogent evidence. The judgments were straightforward and rational, and no independent public policy ground was established.
5. There was no other compelling reason for trial. The Russian judgments represented ordinary enforcement of commercial security. Summary judgment was therefore granted to the Bank.