JSC Commercial Bank Privatbank v Igor Valeryevich Kolomoisky & Ors

Compound interest may form part of full compensation for loss caused by unlawful deprivation of money where the claimant proves that compounding represents the commercial value of the money lost. The court may use a reasonable, evidence-based approximation rather than undertake an elaborate counterfactual inquiry. For a commercial bank, a weighted average borrowing rate with a minimum commercial-return floor was appropriate; the cost of the most expensive borrowing was not sufficiently established.

Indemnity costs may be ordered where the underlying conduct, pre-action conduct, dishonest or shifting defences, disclosure failures and expert failings take the litigation outside the ordinary course. A stay pending appeal requires solid grounds and a balancing of irremediable prejudice. A freezing order does not itself provide security or facilitate enforcement against foreign assets.

The judgment determined consequential matters following the court’s earlier trial judgment, JSC Commercial Bank Privatbank v Kolomoisky [2025] EWHC 1987 (Ch). The claimant had obtained judgment against the individual defendants and corporate defendants for compensation arising from the misappropriation of bank funds.

The court addressed the judgment sums, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, interim payment on account, applications for permission to appeal, stays of execution, and the detailed form of a consequential order, worldwide freezing order and delivery-up and disclosure order. The central issues included the proper measure of interest under Ukrainian and English law, whether the defendants had shown a sufficient risk of irremediable prejudice to justify a stay, and the limits of freezing relief in relation to assets and third parties abroad.

1. Judgment sums and interest. The individual defendants were jointly liable for US$1,761,957,792 in principal. The corporate defendants were liable for identified amounts totalling US$275,537,335. The claimant elected compensation in tort rather than restitutionary relief against the corporate defendants, avoiding double recovery.
2. Under Ukrainian law, compound interest could be awarded as part of full compensation where it represented the commercial value of money of which the claimant had been deprived. The claimant proved that compound interest was necessary to provide full compensation. The appropriate measure was the weighted average of the bank’s US-dollar borrowing, subject to a 3% minimum floor, compounded monthly. The claim based on the most expensive borrowing was rejected as insufficiently established. The individual defendants were liable for US$1,190,083,824 in pre-judgment interest, with corresponding amounts for the corporate defendants.
3. The court would alternatively have awarded simple interest by reference to the same weighted-average rate and 3% floor. Section 35A of the Senior Courts Act 1981 provided a procedural remedy governed by English law, while relevant Ukrainian law remained a factor in exercising the discretion. Post-judgment interest was awarded at US Prime plus 2% under section 44A of the Administration of Justice Act 1970.
4. Costs. The claimant was entitled to indemnity costs. The defendants’ pre-action obstruction, dishonest and shifting defences, disclosure failures, failure to give evidence and unsatisfactory expert evidence cumulatively took the proceedings outside the norm. An interim payment of £76.4 million was ordered.
5. Appeals and stay. Permission to appeal was refused to both individual defendants. A general stay of execution was refused. The applicable approach required solid grounds, usually involving irremediable harm, followed by a balance of prejudice. Sanctions-related risks were weak and ring-fencing arrangements sufficiently addressed any risk of stifling the proposed appeal.
6. Freezing and disclosure relief. The worldwide freezing order was continued, subject to detailed modifications. It remained directed to preventing unjustified disposition and was not security for the judgment. Delivery up of share certificates and transfer forms was permissible as asset preservation, not enforcement. The proposed amendment to the Babanaft proviso, which would have affected foreign third parties without a declaration or enforcement by the local court, was refused as inconsistent with territorial jurisdiction and comity.

The judgment followed the trial judgment of the High Court, Business List, in JSC Commercial Bank Privatbank v Kolomoisky [2025] EWHC 1987 (Ch). Applications for permission to appeal against that judgment were refused in this judgment. A general stay of execution pending appeal was also refused, subject to ring-fencing and other consequential arrangements.