Case: No Place in London for a Russian-Chinese Dispute

Sanctions realities continue to transform international litigation. In one recent case, the practice of legal repatriation—the forced transfer of court disputes from abroad to Russian jurisdiction—took an unexpected turn.

A Chinese company, seeking to recover a debt from a Russian company, filed a claim not in the UK, as stipulated by the arbitration clause in their contract, but in Russia. The Russian company actively resisted this, insisting that the arbitration clause remained in effect and that Russian courts had no jurisdiction to hear the case. "This is an illustrative example of a foreign party deliberately preferring Russian jurisdiction, even when a valid arbitration clause is in place. The Chinese company likely determined that, all else being equal, a Russian court would allow it to achieve the same result but at significantly lower cost—both in terms of time and money," says Igor Gorokhov, Managing Lawyer of the Litigation Practice at CLS. For more details on the reasons behind this procedural maneuver, read Igor Gorokhov's latest commentary for Interfax.

Case: No Place in London for a Russian-Chinese Dispute

Sanctions realities continue to transform international litigation. In one recent case, the practice of legal repatriation—the forced transfer of court disputes from abroad to Russian jurisdiction—took an unexpected turn.

You May Also Be Interested In

Mikhail Shalygin elected to manage Committee for sustainable development at the Russian-German Chamber of Commerce

Lindsey Gramm Bill: CLS Legal Alert

Russian Bill on Supporting Development of Artificial Intelligence Technologies

Victor Kaluzhski, head of the CLS IP group, spoke about protection standards in the era of AI