Zalina Kanametova v OSG Records Management [Europe] Limited [2026] EWHC 1196 (Comm) Incentive agreement Judge Neil Cadwallader of the Commercial Court, King’s Bench Division, within the High Court of England and Wales, held that the LCIA arbitrator’s decision was rightly issued on evidence showing the long-term incentive agreement (LTI) said to guarantee a bonus to claimant Zalina Kanametova was not binding because it had been ‘fraudulently backdated’. As a result, the LCIA arbitrator properly determined there was no jurisdiction over Kanametova’s claim for a USD 1.3 million bonus against the respondent, Cyprus-based OSG Records Management (Europe) Ltd. (referred to as OSG). Kanametova served as general director of OSG’s subsidiary, OSG Records Management Centre LLC (referred to as OSG Russia), from 2011–18. She contended that in 2015 she executed the LTI, which included an arbitration clause, and that it was also signed by Krzysztof...
In this issue: Key DR developments Claims and remedies Costs and funding Litigation Case management Scottish Dispute Resolution New content Dates for your diary Useful information Daily and weekly news alerts Key DR developments CPR updates 195th Practice Direction update expands digital claims process to non-monetary remedies: The Master of the Rolls and the Minister of State for Justice have approved the 195th Practice Direction update, extending the Damages Claim Portal under CPR PD 51ZB so that specified forms of non-monetary relief, described as ‘Other Remedy Claims’, can be filed online alongside a primary damages claim when both sides are represented. The reform also encompasses disputes concerning unfair relationships under the Consumer Credit Act 2006. By transferring matters previously dealt with on paper into a digital pathway, the change is designed to streamline case...
Deutsche Bank AG v Alexander Vik [2026] EWCA Civ 581 What was the background? In 2013, Deutsche Bank AG secured judgment against Sebastian Holdings Inc (SHI), a company controlled by Mr Alexander Vik, following major trading losses and unmet margin calls. SHI remained liable to the bank for more than US$360 million. In 2015, the Commercial Court, relying on CPR 71.2(1)(b), ordered Mr Vik-then an SHI director-to attend for examination and to provide information and documents concerning SHI’s assets and how the judgment debt might be met. He was personally served within the jurisdiction. Although he later resigned as director and left the jurisdiction, he did attend before Cooke J in December 2015. He was subsequently found to have lied repeatedly during that examination and to have deliberately withheld documents. Deutsche Bank then brought contempt proceedings under CPR 81, which resulted in findings of...
The Master of the Rolls and the Minister of State for Justice have approved the 195th Practice Direction (PD) Update, expanding the reach of the Damages Claim Portal (DCP) in CPR PD 51ZB so that specified non-monetary claims-termed ‘Other Remedy Claims’-can be lodged online alongside a principal damages claim, provided both sides have legal representation, rather than relying on paper filing. It further includes within scope disputes concerning unfair relationships under the Consumer Credit Act 2006, extending the update’s application. This reform shifts matters presently dealt with on paper into a digital workflow to enhance efficiency, aligning connected remedies with the same online route as the main damages claim. The amendments take effect on 27 May 2026. The additional category spans three remedies: injunctions, declarations and rescission. Sources: The 195th Practice Direction Update 195th UPDATE – PRACTICE DIRECTION...
At the very outset of a claim, the court will ordinarily make a provisional decision about which ‘track’ it considers most suitable for the effective management of the case. Civil claims are administered through a range of case management tracks within the civil courts. The track to which a claim is placed determines how the court will manage it (including the nature of any case management directions that are likely to be made) and the costs regime that will apply to the proceedings. Deciding the most appropriate track involves weighing several factors, with the financial value of the claim being a principal consideration. Assessed by value, the tracks are, in broad terms, as follows accordingly:
Claim No. [ insert claim number ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES OR IN [ insert location ] OR [ Specify division ] [ Specify specialist court ] [ Insert location ] DISTRICT REGISTRY THE COUNTY COURT AT [ insert location ] BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS LIST Between: [ insert name ] Claimant and [ insert name ] Defendant [ Draft ] Fast track standard directions Further statements of case The [ claimant OR defendant OR other party ] shall lodge a [ name of statement of case ] and, by no later than [ time and calendar date ], serve a copy on the [ claimant OR defendant OR other party ]. Requests for further information Any request seeking clarification or additional information arising from another party’s statement of case must be served no later than [ time and calendar date ]. [ Any such request shall be dealt with by no later than [ time and calendar date ]. ] Disclosure of documents [ [ No document disclosure is required. ] ]...
This Practice Note examines when parties may agree to extend the period for complying with a rule, practice direction or court order that obliges them to take a step within a fixed timeframe and sets out the consequences of any default. For wider guidance on extensions of time, including matters falling outside CPR 3.8(4), see Practice Note: Extension of time. This Practice Note should also be read alongside material addressing the court’s response to party non-compliance and applications for relief from sanction arising from such breaches, which can be found in: Compliance and relief from sanctions—overview. Agreeing an extension of time under CPR 3.8(4) CPR 3.8(4) allows the parties, by prior written agreement, to extend the deadline for performing an act specified by the CPR or a court order where the consequences of failure are prescribed. Any such extension is limited to a maximum of 28 days and must not place any hearing date at risk (CPR 3.8(3) and CPR 3.8(4))...
What is an error of procedure? Procedural missteps may occur in the course of litigation. In certain situations, CPR 3.10 permits the court to correct such a misstep. CPR 3.10 empowers the court to make an order to cure an ‘error of procedure’. The central issue, therefore, is what amounts to an error of procedure. In Steele v Mooney, the Court of Appeal noted that procedural errors can take many forms and are not confined to non-compliance with a rule or practice direction. When considering the phrase, the Court of Appeal concluded there is no need to give ‘error of procedure’ in CPR 3.10 an unduly narrow meaning, as a restrictive interpretation would generate difficult classification questions. That, in turn, would undesirably foster uncertainty and intricate submissions about how an error should be characterised. A broad, common-sense approach should therefore be taken. In Aquila WSA Aviation Opportunities II v Onur Air Tasimacilik, albeit in an obiter section of the judgment, the judge considered whether typographical slips or similar mistakes would fall within procedural error. The judge observed that: ‘It is not safe to assume’...
This Practice Note provides guidance on the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the CPR when seeking a stay. Depending on the court handling your case, additional rules may apply—see: Court specific guidance. It addresses when the court may impose a stay and the steps to remove it. It also sets out situations in which a party might seek a stay, for example to facilitate: a challenge to jurisdiction in a cross-border dispute arbitral proceedings settlement discussions awaiting the result of other proceedings, including linked criminal cases time to meet a procedural step or court direction In some circumstances, CPR 15.11 provides for an automatic stay of the claim—see Practice Note: Stay of civil proceedings—automatic stay under CPR 15.11. For guidance on staying an order or judgment while an appeal is pending, see Practice Note: Grounds for appealing and preliminary considerations—Will the terms of the order or judgment under appeal be stayed?...