Law Debenture Trust Corp. PLC v. Ukraine

[2023] UKSC 11 (2023)

From our private database of 47,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Law Debenture Trust Corp. PLC v. Ukraine

United Kingdom Supreme Court
[2023] UKSC 11 (2023)

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…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 899,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 47,000 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership