WWRT Ltd v Tyshchenko & Anor

WWRT Ltd v Tyshchenko & Anor

The English court has jurisdiction over Mr Tyshchenko as he is domiciled in England. The principle of modified universalism does not justify a stay of proceedings where jurisdiction is established under Article 4 BRR. There are no exceptional circumstances or sufficiently strong grounds to stay the proceedings in favour of Ukrainian insolvency proceedings. WWRT has a good arguable case for the underlying tort claim and for continuation of the freezing order. There was no material breach of the duty of full and frank disclosure. Given the inadequacy of the Defendants' asset disclosure and reasonable suspicion of undisclosed assets, cross-examination and further disclosure are justified.

Parties
Claimant: WWRT Limited; First Defendant: Serhiy Tyshchenko; Second Defendant: Olena Tyshchenko
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil (business and Property) / Interlocutory Applications: Jurisdiction Challenge, Continuation of Freezing Order, Cross Examination and Disclosure
Outcome
Jurisdiction challenge dismissed; freezing order continued; cross-examination and further disclosure ordered; fortification of cross-undertaking in damages ordered; variation of freezing order as to bank account operation by consent.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Freezing Orders, Cross Border Insolvency, Assignment of Claims, Disclosure, Forum Non Conveniens
Civil Procedure Insolvency Law Private International Law Jurisdiction Freezing Orders Cross Border Insolvency Assignment of Claims Disclosure +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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WWRT Limited

Claimant

Serhiy Tyshchenko

First Defendant

Olena Tyshchenko

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (business and Property) / Interlocutory Applications: Jurisdiction Challenge, Continuation of Freezing Order, Cross Examination and Disclosure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court should stay proceedings on grounds of modified universalism or forum non conveniens due to parallel Ukrainian insolvency proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the English court has jurisdiction over Mr Tyshchenko
  3. 3 Whether WWRT has a good arguable case for continuation of the freezing order

Ratio Decidendi

The English court has jurisdiction over Mr Tyshchenko as he is domiciled in England. The principle of modified universalism does not justify a stay of proceedings where jurisdiction is established under Article 4 BRR. There are no exceptional circumstances or sufficiently strong grounds to stay the proceedings in favour of Ukrainian insolvency proceedings. WWRT has a good arguable case for the underlying tort claim and for continuation of the freezing order. There was no material breach of the duty of full and frank disclosure. Given the inadequacy of the Defendants' asset disclosure and reasonable suspicion of undisclosed assets, cross-examination and further disclosure are justified.

Court Disposition

Jurisdiction challenge dismissed; freezing order continued; cross-examination and further disclosure ordered; fortification of cross-undertaking in damages ordered; variation of freezing order as to bank account operation by consent.

Orders

  • Dismissal of Mr Tyshchenko's jurisdiction challenge
  • Continuation of worldwide freezing order against both Defendants