UK Trends and Developments Contributed by: Phillip D’Costa, Richard Marshall, Sophie Newman and Harriet Campbell, Penningtons Manches Cooper LLP
Conclusion English courts have met the realities of modern fraud with equal measures of flexibility and discipline. For fraud litigators, the practical message remains the same: speed is necessary to secure relief. However, it must be accompanied by a skilled application of the law, including on service out of the jurisdiction and ensuring that interim remedies are tailored to fit new ways of holding digital property. Recent guidance from the courts on worldwide freezing orders and the requirements for fraud claims suggests that the English courts will continue to be an agile, claimant- friendly forum for cross-border asset recovery.
tion evidenced by a number of significant recent deci - sions limiting the scope of challenges to enforcement. In one such recent decision from March this year – Hulley Enterprises v The Russian Federation [2026] EWHC 456 (Comm) – the Commercial Court granted the enforcement of three arbitration awards against Russia (at c.USD66 billion, including interest, report - edly the largest ever granted by the court). Russia had resisted enforcement under the public policy excep - tion in s.103 (3) of the English Arbitration Act 1996. Despite this, however, the Court’s decision reaffirmed that English law strongly favours the enforcement of New York Convention awards, and that there is a very high bar for a public policy objection to succeed. It also highlights the English courts’ reluctance to allow parties to expand upon, or recast, arguments already put before a tribunal.
376 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook