Jurisdictional disputes remain central to cross-border commercial litigation in England and Wales. In a recent article, we examined the Commercial Court’s judgment in Alimov v Mirakhmedov [2024] EWHC 3322 (Comm), in which the court held that its jurisdiction was not engaged in a dispute over a large-scale bitcoin mining operation in Kazakhstan.
This week, we delve deeper into current trends in jurisdictional challenges in English Courts, looking at three recent judgments – Magomedov & Ors v TPG Group Holdings (SBS), LP & Ors [2025] EWHC 59 (Comm) (“Magomedov”), Mobile Telecommunications Company KSCP v HRH Prince Hussam Bin Saud Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud [2025] EWHC 85 (Ch) (“Al Saud”), and Servis-Terminal LLC v Drelle [2025] EWCA Civ 62 (“Servis-Terminal”).
These judgments provide insight into the Courts’ current thinking on forum selection, the meaning of residence under insolvency law, and the enforcement of foreign awards.
Establishing Jurisdiction: A High Bar for Claimants
Across all three cases, the English Courts reaffirmed the demanding threshold that must be met for jurisdiction to be established. The starting point remains the requirement for a claimant to demonstrate a good arguable case and a serious issue to be tried. Without these, jurisdiction cannot be engaged.
On 17 January 2025, Mr Justice Bright handed down judgment in Magomedov in the King’s Bench Division (Commercial Court), holding that the US$13.8 billion fraud claim should not be heard in England. The Court held that neither of the conspiracies alleged by Claimant, gave rise to a serious issue to be tried. The Claimants had argued that the Russian state orchestrated both conspiracies to expropriate assets belonging to Mr Magomedov, a former oligarch imprisoned in Russia since 2018. The first, the “NCSP Conspiracy”, involved his stake in PJSC Novorossiysk Commercial Sea Port (NCSP) and implicated Transneft, a Russian state-owned oil pipeline company. The second, the “FESCO Conspiracy”, pertained to his investment in FESCO, a Russian transport and logistics company, and included Ms Mammad Zade along with other Defendants, excluding Transneft. In both, the Court criticised their failure to provide full and frank disclosure and rejected the notion that English jurisdictional gateways had been satisfied.
On 22 January 2025 ICC Chief Insolvency and Companies Court Judge Briggs handed down judgment in Al Saud, which reached similar conclusions, albeit in a different context. In Al Saud, the petitioner sought to enforce a London-seated LCIA arbitral award by pursuing bankruptcy proceedings in England. The key jurisdictional issue was whether Saudi Prince Hussam Bin Saud was resident or domiciled in the UK. The Court held that he was not. His limited visits to the UK and past council tax registration were found to be insufficient. The judgment held that habitual residence requires continuity and substance, not historic or administrative ties. As such, jurisdiction in insolvency proceedings must be grounded in ongoing, meaningful connections to the forum.
Together, the decisions in Magomedov and Al Saud underline the English Courts’ insistence that a speculative link to England will not suffice.
Forum Conveniens and the English Nexus
Even where a serious issue is made out, the English Courts will not assume jurisdiction if another forum is clearly more appropriate. In Magomedov, the Court held that even if the Claimants had succeeded in passing the jurisdictional gateway, England would still not have been the correct forum for the FESCO Conspiracy.
The disputes had little substantive connection to England. The assets were in Russia, the key events occurred there, and many of the defendants were based abroad. The Court concluded that Russia was the natural forum for the claims. And if, due to the political context, litigation in Russia was not possible, then Cyprus – which featured prominently in the relevant corporate structures – would be the next most suitable jurisdiction.
Enforcement, Recognition, and Jurisdictional Limits
The requirement for a strong nexus to England is also playing out in the context of enforcement proceedings. In Servis-Terminal, the Court of Appeal (CoA) addressed whether an unrecognised Russian judgment could form the basis of a bankruptcy petition in England. The CoA held that it could not.
The dispute arose from a judgment obtained in the Arbitrazh Court of Yaroslavl Oblast in Russia in May 2019 by Servis-Terminal LLC, a Russian company in liquidation, against Valeriy Drelle, its former CEO. The Arbitrazh Court awarded Servis-Terminal LLC a sum of RUB 2 billion (approximately £16 million). After Drelle’s appeals in Russia were dismissed, Servis-Terminal sought to enforce the judgment in England, where Drelle had relocated.
A statutory demand was served on Drelle, which he did not satisfy, leading to a bankruptcy petition being filed in October 2020. In March 2023, ICC Judge Burton held that there was no genuine and substantial dispute regarding the debt and issued a bankruptcy order against Drelle in March 2023. However, the CoA reversed this decision, holding that a foreign judgment has no direct effect in England until recognised under common law or statute.
The CoA reaffirmed Dicey Rule 45: enforcement mechanisms such as bankruptcy proceedings cannot be used unless the foreign judgment they rely on has first been recognised. Although insolvency proceedings are a form of collective enforcement rather than direct execution, the Court was clear that they still fall within the scope of enforcement. Recognition is a necessary precondition.
The ruling also clarified an ambiguity in the lower court’s approach. If upheld, that approach would have allowed creditors from non-reciprocal jurisdictions to use bankruptcy to bypass the recognition requirement, creating an uneven playing field compared to creditors relying on judgments from jurisdictions with statutory registration regimes. The Court of Appeal’s decision eliminates that discrepancy and confirms that uniform standards apply.
The CoA’s emphasis on jurisdictional limits echoes the Court’s reasoning in Al Saud, where it held that anti-suit injunctions and contempt findings do not in themselves establish a sufficient connection to England for the purposes of insolvency jurisdiction. While English Courts may intervene to protect arbitration awards, bankruptcy proceedings require clear evidence that the debtor maintains ongoing ties to the UK.
Conclusion
In these cases, English Courts demonstrated a strict approach to jurisdictional disputes, requiring a clear and substantive connection to England. Magomedov and Al Saud highlight the Courts’ reluctance to assume jurisdiction where stronger ties exist elsewhere, while Servis-Terminal confirms that foreign judgments must be recognised before enforcement, preventing creditors from bypassing this step. Together, the judgments point to a broader judicial emphasis on procedural regularity and the importance of substance over strategy.
The judgments discussed here also have implications for creditors seeking to enforce arbitration awards against foreign individuals. The ruling in Al Saud confirms that a debtor’s residence must be established by clear evidence of ongoing ties to England. Creditors will need to explore alternative enforcement mechanisms, such as recognition and enforcement proceedings under the New York Convention in jurisdictions where the debtor holds significant assets.
Authors
-
+447903733137
-
+77019290493
-
+4402039728469
Share this Post