Shulman v Kolomoisky & Anor

Shulman v Kolomoisky & Anor

The claimant failed to establish a good arguable case that the second defendant was resident and domiciled in England as at the date of claim form issuance. The evidence showed the second defendant had effected a distinct break with England and was resident and domiciled in Switzerland by that date. Accordingly, the English court had no jurisdiction over him under the Brussels I Regulation and Lugano Convention.

Parties
Claimant: Vadim Maratovich Shulman; First Defendant: Igor Valeryevich Kolomoisky; Second Defendant: Gennadiy Borisovich Bogolyubov
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil (business/property) / Jurisdictional Challenge (application to Set Aside Service and Contest Jurisdiction)
Outcome
Application allowed; English court has no jurisdiction over the second defendant.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Domicile, Residence, Service of Process, Brussels I Regulation, Lugano Convention
Civil Procedure Private International Law Jurisdiction Domicile Residence Service of Process Brussels I Regulation Lugano Convention

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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vadim Maratovich Shulman

Claimant

Igor Valeryevich Kolomoisky

First Defendant

Gennadiy Borisovich Bogolyubov

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (business/property) / Jurisdictional Challenge (application to Set Aside Service and Contest Jurisdiction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction over the second defendant under the Brussels I Regulation and Lugano Convention based on domicile and residence as at the date of claim form issuance
  2. 2 Whether the second defendant had effected a 'distinct break' with England and become domiciled in Switzerland prior to service

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to establish a good arguable case that the second defendant was resident and domiciled in England as at the date of claim form issuance. The evidence showed the second defendant had effected a distinct break with England and was resident and domiciled in Switzerland by that date. Accordingly, the English court had no jurisdiction over him under the Brussels I Regulation and Lugano Convention.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; English court has no jurisdiction over the second defendant.

Orders

  • Declaration that the court has no jurisdiction to try the claim against the second defendant.
  • Parties to agree the form of order and submit a draft for approval.