Tseitline v Mikhelson & Ors [2015] EWHC 3065 (Comm) (28 October 2015)

Tseitline v Mikhelson & Ors [2015] EWHC 3065 (Comm) (28 October 2015)

Personal service was validly effected on the first defendant because, although he did not accept the envelope and did not speak English, he acquired knowledge of the nature of the documents through his English-speaking companions, satisfying the requirements of CPR 6.5(3) and the authorities on personal service.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 3065 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Alexandre Yakovlevich Tseitline; First Defendant: Leonid Victorovich Mikhelson; Second Defendant: SWGI Growth Fund (Cyprus) Ltd; Third Defendant: Eldon Ventures Ltd (in liquidation); Fourth Defendant: Intertrust Trustees (UK) Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim / Interlocutory Application on Validity of Personal Service and Jurisdiction
Outcome
First defendant's challenge to jurisdiction on the ground of non-service dismissed; valid personal service found.
Legal Topics
Personal Service of Process, Jurisdictional Challenge, Service on Foreign Defendants, Interpretation of CPR 6.5, Requirements for Valid Service
Civil Procedure Private International Law Personal Service of Process Jurisdictional Challenge Service on Foreign Defendants Interpretation of CPR 6.5 Requirements for Valid Service

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 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexandre Yakovlevich Tseitline

Claimant

Leonid Victorovich Mikhelson

First Defendant

SWGI Growth Fund (Cyprus) Ltd

Second Defendant

Eldon Ventures Ltd (in liquidation)

Third Defendant

Intertrust Trustees (UK) Ltd

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim / Interlocutory Application on Validity of Personal Service and Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether personal service of the claim form was validly effected on the first defendant under CPR 6.5(3)
  2. 2 Whether the requirements for personal service are satisfied when the recipient does not speak English and the documents are in an unmarked envelope
  3. 3 Whether knowledge of the nature of the document must be acquired by the recipient for valid service

Ratio Decidendi

Personal service was validly effected on the first defendant because, although he did not accept the envelope and did not speak English, he acquired knowledge of the nature of the documents through his English-speaking companions, satisfying the requirements of CPR 6.5(3) and the authorities on personal service.

Court Disposition

First defendant's challenge to jurisdiction on the ground of non-service dismissed; valid personal service found.

Orders

  • First defendant was validly served with the claim form on 4 October 2014.
  • First ground of jurisdictional challenge fails.