Law Debenture Trust Corp. PLC v. Ukraine
United Kingdom Supreme Court
[2023] UKSC 11 (2023)
- Written by Brianna Pine, JD
Facts
In December 2013, Ukraine (defendant) issued $3 billion in notes to the Russian Federation (Russia). When Ukraine refused to repay the notes at maturity, Russia’s trustee, Law Debenture Trust Corporation plc (trustee) (plaintiff), brought an action against Ukraine. Ukraine responded that the notes were voidable for duress, alleging that Russia applied unlawful and illegitimate pressure to coerce Ukraine into accepting Russian financial assistance rather than entering into an association agreement with the European Union (EU). Ukraine claimed Russia exploited its financial vulnerability and dependence on stable trade relations with Russia to exert coercive pressure, including: (1) trade restrictions: banning imports from Ukrainian companies; (2) threats of further trade measures: warning that import bans would become permanent if Ukraine pursued the EU agreement; (3) energy threats: threatening to cut off natural-gas supplies; (4) financial intimidation: threatening to bankrupt Ukrainian manufacturers; and (5) security and territorial threats: stating that Russia would support the partitioning of Ukraine if it signed the EU agreement and could no longer guarantee Ukraine’s status as a state, warning that borders might need to be redrawn. Russian military force in support of Ukraine’s partitioning would almost inevitably involve violence against Ukrainian armed forces and civilians. Ukraine argued that these actions amounted to illegitimate or unlawful pressure because they were taken not for bona fide reasons but to coerce Ukraine’s political decision-making, and because they breached international law by threatening Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Ukraine asserted it had no practical choice but to accept the Russian financial package and issued the notes under the compulsion of these threats. The trustee moved for summary judgment, arguing that Ukraine’s duress defense was legally insufficient under English law. The high court granted the motion, and the court of appeal affirmed. Ukraine appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Reed, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

