Resources

Commercial Court refuses jurisdiction in $14 billion Russian dispute: Magomedov v TPG Group

News & Judgments
17 January 2025

On 17 January 2025, Mr Justice Bright handed down judgment in Magomedov & Ors v TPG Group Holdings (SBS), LP & Ors [2025] EWHC 59 (Comm), accepting the Defendants’ submission that the claims brought against them should not be tried in England. 

The claims involved two alleged conspiracies, which are separate but alleged to be related.  The ‘NCSP Conspiracy’ related to an interest that the First Claimant (Mr Magomedov) had in a commercial seaport in Russia.  The ‘FESCO Conspiracy’ related to Mr Magomedov’s stake in a Russian company which was the parent company of a group which owned another commercial seaport in Russia. 

Mr Magomedov’s case was that his investments in ports of strategic importance to the Russian state caused it to wage a political campaign against him, with the aim of taking those assets from him for the benefit of the Russian State.  He alleged that it was this campaign which led to his arrest and imprisonment in Russia for organised crime and embezzlement.    

The First to Seventh Defendants made a strike out/summary judgment application in relation to the claims pleaded against them.  The other Defendants all brought jurisdictional challenges (and some also made further applications, including to set aside service or alternative service).  A common thread that ran through the applications was that the Claimants’ case did not raise a serious issue to be tried.  The Defendants who challenged jurisdiction also disputed the applicability of the jurisdictional gateways relied on by the Claimants and contended that England was not the appropriate forum for the claims.  The Defendants argued that there was no real connection with England and that the natural forum for the claims was Russia.  In relation to the alleged FESCO conspiracy, most of the Defendants said that, if the claims could not be tried in Russia, the most appropriate forum was Cyprus.

The Judge heard submissions in relation to the alleged FESCO Conspiracy over two weeks in September 2024 and then in relation to the NCSP conspiracy over a further week in November 2024. 

In relation to the FESCO Conspiracy, the Judge held that the Claimants had no real prospect of success and/or there was no serious issue to be tried against a number of the Defendants, including the so-called “anchor defendants”.  While the Judge held that there were serious issues to be tried against some of the Defendants, he noted that a jurisdiction challenge was not the right occasion for a detailed consideration of the merits.  In any event, he found that none of the jurisdictional gateways relied on by the Claimants were available to them.

The Judge held that the natural forum for the trial of the claims was unquestionably Russia.  In relation to the alleged NCSP Conspiracy, if he had concluded that the Claimants had succeeded in establishing that there were serious issues to be tried and they could rely on one of the jurisdictional gateways, the Judge indicated that he would not have concluded that this court should not exercise jurisdiction on the basis that it is not the appropriate forum.  The Judge would have reached that conclusion because the only other jurisdiction contended for was Russia, and because his concern that there was a real risk that the Claimants would not be able to obtain justice in Russia.

In relation to the alleged FESCO conspiracy, if the Judge had concluded not only that the Claimants had succeeded in establishing that there were serious issues to be tried, but also that they could rely on one of the jurisdictional gateways, he would have concluded that the Court should decline jurisdiction in favour of Cyprus. 

The Judge noted that by comparison with many jurisdictional challenges, this was a lengthy hearing involving substantial evidence and detailed submissions, which was a result of the Claimants’ case being lengthy and complex and there being a very large number of Defendants who faced different allegations and had different things to say.   

Justin Fenwick KC, Tim Chelmick and Mark Cullen acted for the Seventeenth Defendant, instructed by PCB Byrne LLP Senior Partner Anthony Riem and Senior Associate Chloe Fleming throughout, including at an earlier hearing where Butcher J refused to grant notification and freezing orders against the Defendants: [2023] EWHC 2655 (Comm).  Daniel Saoul KC also acted for the Claimants in the proceedings. 

Read the full judgment here.

Related areas

Related People

Justin Fenwick KC

Call: 1980 Silk: 1993

Daniel Saoul KC

Call: 2008 Silk: 2019

Tim Chelmick

Call: 2004

Mark Cullen

Call: 2013

Search

Expertise

Related resources

Four Fundamentals of Limitation Periods in Contract and Tort Claims


By Carl Troman, Barrister and Mediator at 4 New Square Chambers Four…

Discover more

Stay of proceedings before serving a claim form


What should claimants do when limitation is about to expire? Noting the…

Discover more

Why are there so many cases against lawyers for contempt of court?


There has been a spate of cases in the past couple of…

Discover more

If you would like to know more or have a question please talk to our clerks

Portfolio Builder

Select the expertise that you would like to download or add to the portfolio

Download    Add to portfolio   
Portfolio
Title Type CV Email

Remove All

Download


Click here to share this shortlist.
(It will expire after 30 days.)