Tugushev v Orlov & Ors [2019] EWHC 645 (Comm) (27 March 2019)

Tugushev v Orlov & Ors [2019] EWHC 645 (Comm) (27 March 2019)

The court held that Mr Tugushev failed to establish a good arguable case that Mr Orlov was domiciled or resident in England at the relevant time. The court found that the claims did not satisfy the requirements of the tort or necessary/proper party gateways for service out, and that England was not the clearly appropriate forum for the dispute, which was overwhelmingly Russian in nature. Accordingly, the court discharged the freezing order and set aside permission to serve out of the jurisdiction.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 645 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Alexander Tugushev; First Defendant: Vitaly Orlov; Second Defendant: Magnus Roth; Third Defendant: Andrey Petrik
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Proceedings (qbd) / Interlocutory Judgment on Jurisdiction and Freezing Order
Outcome
Jurisdiction challenge and freezing order challenge succeeded; English court declines jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Freezing Orders, Forum Non Conveniens, Conspiracy, Contract, Limitation of Actions
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Private International Law Jurisdiction Freezing Orders Forum Non Conveniens Conspiracy Contract +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexander Tugushev

Claimant

Vitaly Orlov

First Defendant

Magnus Roth

Second Defendant

Andrey Petrik

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Proceedings (qbd) / Interlocutory Judgment on Jurisdiction and Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction over the claims against Mr Orlov and others
  2. 2 Whether Mr Orlov is domiciled or resident in England
  3. 3 Whether the claims fall within the tort or necessary/proper party gateways for service out

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Mr Tugushev failed to establish a good arguable case that Mr Orlov was domiciled or resident in England at the relevant time. The court found that the claims did not satisfy the requirements of the tort or necessary/proper party gateways for service out, and that England was not the clearly appropriate forum for the dispute, which was overwhelmingly Russian in nature. Accordingly, the court discharged the freezing order and set aside permission to serve out of the jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Jurisdiction challenge and freezing order challenge succeeded; English court declines jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Discharge of the worldwide freezing order against Mr Orlov
  • Setting aside of permission to serve out of the jurisdiction on Mr Orlov