WWRT Ltd v Tyshchenko & Anor [2023] EWHC 907 (Ch) (24 April 2023)

WWRT has not established serious breaches by Mrs Tyshchenko that would jeopardise enforcement of judgment post-trial. Mrs Tyshchenko provided plausible explanations for alleged breaches, and no evidence supports deliberate or material non-compliance. Debarring or unless orders are not justified.

Citation: [2023] EWHC 907 (Ch)
Parties: Claimant: WWRT LIMITED; First Defendant: Serhiy Tyshchenko; Second Defendant: Olena Tyshchenko
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 24 April 2023
Procedural Posture: Application / Post Freezing Order, Application to Debar and Strike Out Defence
Outcome: Application dismissed
Legal Topics: Debarring Orders, Freezing Orders, Disclosure Obligations, Enforcement of Judgments

Civil Procedure Asset Freezing Bankruptcy Debarring Orders Freezing Orders Disclosure Obligations Enforcement of Judgments

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7

Parties

WWRT LIMITED

Claimant

Serhiy Tyshchenko

First Defendant

Olena Tyshchenko

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application / Post Freezing Order, Application to Debar and Strike Out Defence

Legal Issues

1 Whether Mrs Tyshchenko should be debarred from defending the claim and her defence struck out for alleged breaches of freezing and disclosure orders
2 Whether an unless order should be made as an alternative to immediate debarring
3 Whether the breaches create a substantial risk to enforcement of judgment post-trial

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application dismissed