Google LLC & Anor v NAO Tsargard Media & Ors
| Judge | Mr Justice Henshaw |
| Judgment Date | 22 January 2025 |
| Neutral Citation | [2025] EWHC 94 (Comm) |
| Counsel | Stephen Houseman Kc,Kabir Bhalla,Lorraine Aboagye,Yash Kulkarni Kc |
| Date | 22 January 2025 |
| Year | 2025 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court) |
Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWHC 94 (Comm)
Case Nos: CL-2024-000477, 000478, 000479 and 000480
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
COMMERCIAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Rolls Building, Fetter Lane,
London, EC4A 1NL
Date: 22/01/2025
Before :
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE HENSHAW
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:
(1) GOOGLE LLC
(2) GOOGLE IRELAND LIMITED
Claimants
- and -
(1) NAO TSARGRAD MEDIA
(2) NO FOND PRAVOSLAVNOGO
TELEVIDENIYA
(3) ANO TV-NOVOSTI
Defendants
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stephen Houseman KC, Kabir Bhalla and Lorraine Aboagye (instructed by King &
Spalding International LLC) for the Claimants
Yash Kulkarni KC (instructed by Candey Limited) for the Defendants
Hearing dates: 26 and 27 November 2024
Draft judgment circulated to parties: 7 January 2025
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Approved Judgment
.............................
Mr Justice Henshaw
Approved Judgment
Google v Tsargrad
2
Mr Justice Henshaw:
(A) INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 2
(B) MAIN FACTS ..................................................................................................................... 3
(1) Contractual Matrix ........................................................................................................... 3
(2) Russian Proceedings ......................................................................................................... 4
(a) Tsargrad ........................................................................................................................ 4
(b) TV-Novosti................................................................................................................. 10
(c) NFPT .......................................................................................................................... 14
(3) Enforcement Jurisdictions .............................................................................................. 16
(a) Enforcement in Russia ................................................................................................ 16
(b) Enforcement outside Russia ....................................................................................... 17
(C) PRINCIPLES ..................................................................................................................... 21
(D) THE YOUTUBE JURISDICTION CLAUSE .................................................................. 42
(1) Exclusive or non-exclusive jurisdiction clause? ............................................................ 43
(2) Mandatory law proviso................................................................................................... 44
(E) WAIVER AND SUBMISSION TO RUSSIAN JURISDICTION .................................... 48
(F) DELAY AND COMITY .................................................................................................... 51
(G) CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 52
(A) INTRODUCTION
1. The Claimants, Google LLC (“Google”) and Google Ireland Limited (“Google
Ireland”) seek final relief against the Defendants, to whom I shall respectively refer as
“Tsargrad”, “NFPT” and “TV-Novosti”.
2. The main remedy sought is anti-enforcement injunctive (“AEI”) relief, with ancillary
anti-anti-suit injunctive (“AASI”) relief, in order to prevent the recognition or
enforcement of a series of judgments of the Russian courts (“Russian Judgments”) in
any jurisdiction outside Russia. The Russian proceedings are alleged to have been
commenced and pursued in breach of London arbitration or exclusive English
jurisdiction agreements. The judgments have led to the seizure in Russia of assets worth
more than £50 million belonging to a subsidiary (“Google Russia”), and the Defendants
have also embarked on a series of attempts to enforce the Russian Judgments in various
other jurisdictions around the world.
3. The Defendants’ position, in outline, is that:
i) subject to one exception, the Russian Proceedings were not brought in breach of
an exclusive jurisdiction clause or arbitration agreement;
ii) the Claimants have submitted to the jurisdiction of the Russian courts; and
Mr Justice Henshaw
Approved Judgment
Google v Tsargrad
3
iii) relief should in any event be refused on the grounds of delay.
4. For the reasons set out below, I have reached the conclusion that the Claimants’
arguments are to be preferred and that final anti-enforcement injunctive relief, and any
appropriate supporting relief, should be granted.
(B) MAIN FACTS
(1) Contractual Matrix
5. The creation and use of a Google account and YouTube channel are subject to,
respectively, the Google Terms of Service, as amended, and the YouTube Terms of
Service, as amended. Use of and entitlement to such services is subject to contractual
safeguards in the discretion of Google, including an ability (in the YouTube Terms of
Service) to suspend or terminate a Google account (and related services) in the event
that Google was required to do so to comply with law or a court order.
6. Tsargrad and TV-Novosti entered into separate agreements with Google Ireland for
monetisation services, namely: (a) an Order Form, incorporating the Platform Terms,
which covered revenue sharing from advertising on Tsargrad’s YouTube channel; and
(b) a Content Agreement setting out the terms by which Google Ireland would store,
index and host content and make such content or portions of it available to end users of
the relevant services provided to TV-Novosti.
7. The YouTube EJC provides:
“The Agreement and your relationship with YouTube under the
Agreement are governed by English law. To resolve disputes, the parties
may apply to the courts of England and Wales.
If, under any mandatory law of your country, the dispute cannot be
resolved in a court in England or Wales and in accordance with the
norms of English law, the case may be referred for consideration to a
local court and the issue may be resolved as guided by local legislation.”
8. The Platform EJC at clause 14.6 of the Platform Terms provides:
“The Agreement is governed by English law and the parties submit to
the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts in relation to any dispute
(contractual or non-contractual) concerning the Agreement save that
either party may apply to any court for an injunction or other relief to
protect its intellectual property rights.”
9. Clause 14.11 of the Content Agreement provides:
“This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with
English law. Without prejudice to the right of either party to apply to
any court of competent jurisdiction for emergency, interim or injunctive
relief, any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with this
Agreement, including any question regarding its existence, validity or
termination, shall be referred to and finally resolved by arbitration under
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
1 cases
-
Google LLC v Nao Tsargrad Media
...However, I shall provide a final opportunity for submissions on this point before the form of order is drawn up. (G) CONCLUSION[2025] EWHC 94 (Comm) THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice Henshaw Case Nos: CL-2024-000477, 000478, 000479 and 000480 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURT......