Renaissance Securities (Cyprus) Limited v ILLC Chlodwig Enterprises & Ors

Where an existing order requires proceedings brought in breach of arbitration agreements to be terminated, the court may clarify and extend prohibitory provisions to prevent steps which would allow those proceedings to continue or be revived.

Such clarification may include requiring parties actively to oppose third-party appeals against termination. Where an application is effectively ex parte because proper notice has not been given, the applicant must make full and frank disclosure, and the affected party should have liberty to apply at short notice to set aside or vary the order.

The claimant sought urgent clarification and amendment of an earlier order concerning Russian proceedings brought by the defendants in breach of arbitration agreements. The application followed developments in which one defendant had not procured termination of its proceedings and, in two other proceedings, a co-defendant had appealed against partial termination and later sought to withdraw that appeal.

The claimant sought a unitary order imposing positive obligations to procure or support termination, prohibiting steps intended or likely to keep the proceedings alive, and requiring active opposition to third-party appeals. Two defendants had not received three clear days’ notice, so the court considered the application against them effectively ex parte.

1. The application was urgent because a further hearing in the Russian proceedings was fixed for 23 September 2024. It was appropriate to determine the application before that hearing.

2. The court would not curtail the notice period. In relation to the defendants who had not received three clear days’ notice, it proceeded effectively on an ex parte basis. The claimant therefore owed a duty of full and frank disclosure, and the defendants were to have liberty to apply on short notice to set aside or vary the order.

3. The proposed amendments served three proper purposes: consolidating the provisions in a unitary order; clarifying and extending the prohibitory provisions; and requiring specified defendants actively to object to third-party appeals against termination of the Russian proceedings.

4. The existing order required termination of proceedings brought in breach of the arbitration agreements contained in the Investment Services Agreements. Its intention would be frustrated if defendants took steps or made submissions intended, or having the effect, of allowing those proceedings to remain in existence or be reinstated. The court therefore considered it appropriate to make expanded negative orders against Chlodwig and Adorabella, and to include an express obligation on them and the other defendants actively to oppose relevant appeals.

5. A related application was procedurally defective because the Russian lawyers had purported to sign it as a litigation friend without appointment, the defendants did not fall within the categories for which a litigation friend may act under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, no address for service within the jurisdiction had been given, and the application had not been served. No order was made on that application.

6. Orders were made essentially in the terms sought, subject to further consideration of their precise wording.

The judgment records earlier orders and judgments in the same proceedings, including orders made by Mr Justice Henshaw and amendments made by Mr Justice Foxton. The present court clarified and extended those orders.