Federal Treasury Enterprise (FKP) Sojuzplodoimport v Spirits International B.V. (Form of Orders)

The case before the court involved a dispute between Federal Treasury Enterprise (FKP) Sojuzplodoimport and Spirits International B.V. over the ownership of several trademarks, including the STOLICHNAYA trademark. The primary issue was whether the cross-claim should be permanently stayed due to the failure of cross-claimants and a third-party nation-state to provide voluntary discovery. This dispute arose out of a broader litigation concerning the ownership of trademarks in various jurisdictions, which had been ongoing since 2003.

The court was required to decide whether the entire cross-claim should be permanently stayed because of the failure to provide discovery, and if so, what the effect of this failure was on the cross-claimants' contention of issue estoppel and the cross-respondent's defences. This required consideration of the principle in Arnold v National Westminster Bank plc [1991] 2 AC 93, which deals with the circumstances under which a court may grant a stay due to abuse of process.

The court reasoned that the permanent stay was appropriate because the Russian Federation and FKP had unreasonably failed to give discovery, leading to an abuse of process. The discovery categories directly related to the transformation issue and the discretionary defences. The court rejected FKP's contention that the documents in question could not assist Spirits in relation to the discretionary defences, noting that the discovery categories covered the entire history of the transformation. The court also rejected FKP's argument that the Dutch decisions provided a complete answer to the discretionary defences, stating that it was difficult to determine the exact effect of the Dutch decisions on the cross-claim.

The court ordered that any further proceeding on the third further amended cross-claim be permanently stayed, granted the cross-claimants leave to appeal from this order, and directed that certain costs be paid by the cross-claimants. Additionally, it stood over certain prayers of an interlocutory application to a case management hearing.