Sanctions, Fortification, and Freezers: VTB Bank PJSC v Kuanyshev & Anor - Relevant Case Handout

15/09/26

Three recent decisions: [2026] EWHC 591 (Comm), [2026] EWHC 1983 (Comm), [2026] EWHC 2140 (Comm)

1.      Fortification Order — [2026] EWHC 591 (Comm) (16 March 2026)

§  On 9 February, Bright J had granted WFO ex parte; £100,000 ‘ring-fenced’ as fortification.

§  Return date: amount of fortification increased to £500,000 applying Energy Venture Partners Ltd v Malabu Oil and Gas Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1295, [52]–[53].

§  VTB ordered to pay into court and to pursue necessary OFSI/OFAC licences expeditiously: anticipated OFSI licensing delay meant better to “erode that period now, rather than later.”

2.      Discharge Order — [2026] EWHC 1983 (Comm) (28 July 2026)

§  Nearly six months later: fortification still unpaid.

§  Fortification is the “price” of a WFO, applying Commodity Ocean Transport Corp v Basford Unicorn Industries Ltd (The Mito) [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 197 and Thai-Lao Lignite (Thailand) Co Ltd v Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic [2013] EWHC 2466 (Comm).

§  Designated status justified some latitude, not indefinite relief without protection. “Six months is the longest that could possibly be thought appropriate” [26]. Final deadline: 10 August, with stay of execution until 31 August pending appeal.

§  On 28 August 2026, Court of Appeal refused PTA on the papers; WFO discharged.

3.      Set-Aside Decision — [2026] EWHC 2140 (Comm) (30 July 2026)

Set aside grounds: (i) sanctions; (ii) section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982; (iii) no cause of action against D2 (deferred pending proceedings in Kazakhstan).

a.      Breach of Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, regulations 11–15

§  Mints & Ors v PJSC National Bank Trust & Anor [2023] EWCA Civ 1132: “‘making funds available’ might well be apt to describe an order enforcing a judgment, but not entering the judgment.” Flaux C, [201]–[203].

§  Defendants argued that WFO fell on enforcement side, relying on Convoy Collateral Ltd v Broad Idea International Ltd [2021] UKPC 24.

§  Dias J dismissed the challenge. WFO is in personam, creates no proprietary interest and makes no assets available, while asset disclosure order is too remote from any financial benefit [36]-[50]. PTA granted.

b.      Section 25(2) of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982: ‘inexpediency’

§  Key authorities: Credit Suisse Fides Trust SA v Cuoghi [1998] QB 818; Refco Inc v Eastern Trading Co [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 159; Motorola Credit Corporation v Uzan [2003] EWCA Civ 752; Ryan v Friction Dynamics Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 707; VTB v Skurikhin [2014] EWHC 2254 (QB).

§  Dias J held WFO was not inexpedient but carved out D1’s Kazakh assets from the scope of the WFO, following Skurikhin, [58]-[64]