WWRT Ltd v Tyshchenko & Anor [2021] EWHC 939 (Ch) (21 April 2021)

WWRT Ltd v Tyshchenko & Anor [2021] EWHC 939 (Ch) (21 April 2021)

Mr Tyshchenko is domiciled in England, establishing jurisdiction under Article 4 BRR. Modified universalism and forum non conveniens do not justify a stay. WWRT is not a 'creditor' under Ukrainian insolvency law, so its claim does not conflict with Ukrainian proceedings. No exceptional grounds exist for a stay. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 939 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: WWRT Limited; First Defendant: Serhiy Tyshchenko; Second Defendant: Olena Tyshchenko
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Commercial Fraud Claim (tort) / Interlocutory Applications: Jurisdiction Challenge, Freezing Order Continuation, Cross Examination Orders
Outcome
Jurisdiction challenge dismissed; freezing order continued; cross-examination orders granted.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Freezing Orders, Modified Universalism, Forum Non Conveniens, Recognition of Foreign Insolvency, Assignment of Claims, Expert Evidence
Civil Procedure Insolvency Conflict of Laws Banking Law Jurisdiction Freezing Orders Modified Universalism Forum Non Conveniens +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 6 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WWRT Limited

Claimant

Serhiy Tyshchenko

First Defendant

Olena Tyshchenko

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Fraud Claim (tort) / Interlocutory Applications: Jurisdiction Challenge, Freezing Order Continuation, Cross Examination Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction over Mr Tyshchenko under Article 4 of the Brussels Regulation (Recast)
  2. 2 Whether proceedings should be stayed on grounds of modified universalism or forum non conveniens
  3. 3 Whether WWRT is a creditor under Ukrainian insolvency law

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Tyshchenko is domiciled in England, establishing jurisdiction under Article 4 BRR. Modified universalism and forum non conveniens do not justify a stay. WWRT is not a 'creditor' under Ukrainian insolvency law, so its claim does not conflict with Ukrainian proceedings. No exceptional grounds exist for a stay. The freezing order is continued and cross-examination orders are granted.

Court Disposition

Jurisdiction challenge dismissed; freezing order continued; cross-examination orders granted.

Orders

  • Proceedings against Mr Tyshchenko to continue in England.
  • Worldwide freezing order against both Defendants continued.