Tugushev v Orlov & Ors

Tugushev v Orlov & Ors

The court held that Mr Tugushev has a good arguable case that Mr Orlov is resident and domiciled in England as at the relevant date, based on the settled and regular use of a London property, family and business connections, and the pattern of visits. This satisfies the requirements for jurisdiction under Article 4 of the Recast Regulation. Alternatively, the tort and necessary or proper party gateways are satisfied, as there is a good arguable case that the alleged conspiracies were hatched in England and that Mr Orlov is a necessary or proper party to the claim against Mr Petrik. The AA conspiracy claim is not time-barred, as Mr Tugushev did not discover the relevant facts or the...

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 Civil Claim (conspiracy, Contract, Damages, Declaratory Relief, Account) / Interlocutory Judgment on Jurisdiction and Continuation of Freezing Order
Outcome
Jurisdiction challenge dismissed; English court has jurisdiction over all claims against Mr Orlov. Continuation of freezing order and other applications adjourned for further hearing.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Forum Non Conveniens, Conspiracy, Limitation, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Freezing Orders
Private International Law Civil Procedure Commercial Law Jurisdiction Forum Non Conveniens Conspiracy Limitation Service Out of Jurisdiction +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 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexander Tugushev

Claimant

Vitaly Orlov

First Defendant

Magnus Roth

Second Defendant

Andrey Petrik

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Civil Claim (conspiracy, Contract, Damages, Declaratory Relief, Account) / Interlocutory Judgment on Jurisdiction and Continuation of 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 tort and necessary or proper party gateways are satisfied for service out of jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Mr Tugushev has a good arguable case that Mr Orlov is resident and domiciled in England as at the relevant date, based on the settled and regular use of a London property, family and business connections, and the pattern of visits. This satisfies the requirements for jurisdiction under Article 4 of the Recast Regulation. Alternatively, the tort and necessary or proper party gateways are satisfied, as there is a good arguable case that the alleged conspiracies were hatched in England and that Mr Orlov is a necessary or proper party to the claim against Mr Petrik. The AA conspiracy claim is not time-barred, as Mr Tugushev did not discover the relevant facts or the...

Court Disposition

Jurisdiction challenge dismissed; English court has jurisdiction over all claims against Mr Orlov. Continuation of freezing order and other applications adjourned for further hearing.

Orders

  • Jurisdiction challenge by Mr Orlov dismissed
  • Claims against Mr Orlov may proceed in England