LONDON – Nov. 21, 2024 – Greenberg Traurig, LLP’s London office represented Georgy Bedzhamov in UK Supreme Court proceedings, successfully upholding the “immoveables rule” and rejecting a Russian trustee-in-bankruptcy’s attempt to influence the ownership of property in London. The court’s judgment effectively limits the influence of Russian courts in respect of English land.
Instructed by London Litigation Shareholders Martin Shobbrook and Claire Broadbelt and Associates Zeno Agnew-Davies and Irina Morozova in Greenberg Traurig’s UK Civil Fraud & Business Disputes Practice, Stephen Robins KC and Justin Fenwick KC represented Bedzhamov, arguing that while Parliament had established certain statutory exceptions to the immoveables rule in recent years, including provisions under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations and section 426 of the Insolvency Act 1986, the court had no jurisdiction to assist the Russian trustee-in-bankruptcy because none of the exceptions provided by the legislation applied.
The Supreme Court agreed that the exceptions to the immoveables rule could not be applied by analogy and declined to expand the common law to permit the appointment of a receiver on behalf of the foreign trustee. The court noted the historical and present-day underpinnings of the immoveables rule, including territorial sovereignty and that any enforcement would ultimately rely on the courts in the jurisdiction where the land is situated, and stated that the establishment of any further exceptions would be a matter for Parliament, not the courts.
As a result, the Russian trustee-in-bankruptcy’s appeal seeking assistance from the English courts was refused.
Shobbrook said, “This is a great result for our client that shows due regard to territorial sovereignty and appropriate deference to the limits of the court’s sphere of decision-making, as opposed to Parliament. Practically, it serves to limit the influence of Russian courts in respect of English land, as is appropriate for all the historical and present-day reasons set out by the Court in its judgment.”