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...
The CPR rules governing interim injunctive relief, including freezing injunctions, were updated with effect from 6 April 2025. Notably, CPR 25 underwent substantial revision and the related Practice Directions-together with the specimen freezing order in Annex A to Practice Direction 25A-were withdrawn. In their place, a new template order for a freezing injunction took effect on 6 April 2025. The reforms were not designed to change the underlying law or day-to-day practice in any significant way. They did, however, renumber and relocate many provisions. Accordingly, authorities and commentary issued before 6 April 2025 should be treated cautiously, as they cites the previous provisions, numbering and standard order.
For further background, including links to the rules that applied before 6 April 2025, see:
For the avoidance of doubt, references in this subtopic to:
This Practice Note examines the American Cyanamid test used by the courts to determine whether to grant temporary injunctive relief. It sets out the sources of the court’s authority and the principles that inform a judge’s discretion when considering an interim injunction application under those guidelines. For wider guidance on injunctive relief, including the distinction between interim and final, and between prohibitory and mandatory orders, see Practice Note: Injunctions—guiding principles. For interim remedies focused on preserving assets and/or evidence, see: Freezing injunctions—guiding principles Proprietary freezing injunctions Search and imaging orders—guiding principles Interim delivery up orders and preservation of property This content should also be read in conjunction with: Interim injunctions—on notice applications Interim injunctions—without notice applications Interim injunctions—drafting the order Guiding principles for interim injunctions The jurisdiction to grant interim injunctions arises from section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and CPR 25.1(1)(a), as outlined in Practice Note: Injunctions—guiding principles—The court’s power to grant injunctions. In general terms, the courts retain a broad discretion to award interim injunctive relief...
When evaluating a general damages claim, the practitioner ought initially to refer to the Judicial College Guidelines (JCG)...
This Practice Note This Practice Note reviews mechanisms used in settling litigation. A Tomlin order consists of a consent order paired with a schedule. It operates to stay proceedings on terms that have been agreed. The provisions contained in the schedule may remain confidential. This Practice Note describes the scope of confidentiality attaching to the schedule and sets out how it differs from a standard consent order. Sample wording for a Tomlin order is included, alongside links to precedents, as well as guidance on court approval. It also addresses varying, setting aside and enforcing a Tomlin order, including the considerations the court will take into account when handling applications for each. Further guidance is provided on interpreting and applying the relevant provisions of the CPR; however, some courts and divisions impose very specific requirements for both drafting and approval, and for approaching the schedule and confidentiality issues. Accordingly, you must consider the particular rules and court guide provisions in the forum where your claim is proceeding when drawing up the Tomlin order...
Date [ date ] Parties [ name of Landlord ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Landlord) [ name of Tenant ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Tenant) [ [ name of Guarantor ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Guarantor) ] [ [ name of Mortgagee ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Mortgagee) ] Definitions Within this Deed, the terms below shall be interpreted as follows: [ Annual Rent • the annual sum reserved under the Lease; ] [ Insurance Rent • the Tenant’s share of the Landlord’s costs of insuring the Property (as set out in the Lease); ] Lease • the lease of the Property dated [ date ], entered into between (1) [ the Landlord OR [ name ...