NATALIYA GOLUBOVICH v ALEXEY GOLUBOVICH & OLGA MIRIMSKAYA

NATALIYA GOLUBOVICH v ALEXEY GOLUBOVICH & OLGA MIRIMSKAYA

The Deputy Master did not err in law or principle in rejecting the abuse of process argument, properly distinguished the prior anti-suit injunction judgment, did not misdirect himself by treating the 'proper party' test as conclusive on forum, and conducted a proper evaluative exercise on forum conveniens. Any procedural irregularity in the summary assessment of costs did not result in substantive unfairness or justify interference.

Parties
Claimant: Nataliya Golubovich; Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Alexey Golubovich; Part 20 Defendant/appellant: Olga Mirimskaya
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Application for Permission to Appeal And, Subject to Permission, Substantive Appeal
Outcome
Jurisdiction Appeal dismissed; Costs Appeal permission refused
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Forum Non Conveniens, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Abuse of Process, Summary Assessment of Costs
Civil Procedure Private International Law Jurisdiction Forum Non Conveniens Service Out of Jurisdiction Abuse of Process Summary Assessment of Costs

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nataliya Golubovich

Claimant

Alexey Golubovich

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Olga Mirimskaya

Part 20 Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Application for Permission to Appeal And, Subject to Permission, Substantive Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it was an abuse of process for Alexey to argue England was the natural forum after a prior anti-suit injunction judgment
  2. 2 Whether the Deputy Master misdirected himself by conflating the 'proper party' test with the forum conveniens analysis
  3. 3 Whether the Deputy Master erred in his evaluation of the factors relevant to forum conveniens

Ratio Decidendi

The Deputy Master did not err in law or principle in rejecting the abuse of process argument, properly distinguished the prior anti-suit injunction judgment, did not misdirect himself by treating the 'proper party' test as conclusive on forum, and conducted a proper evaluative exercise on forum conveniens. Any procedural irregularity in the summary assessment of costs did not result in substantive unfairness or justify interference.

Court Disposition

Jurisdiction Appeal dismissed; Costs Appeal permission refused

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted on the Jurisdiction Appeal
  • Jurisdiction Appeal dismissed