WWRT Ltd v Tyshchenko & Anor [2021] EWHC 2129 (Ch) (06 July 2021)

WWRT Ltd v Tyshchenko & Anor [2021] EWHC 2129 (Ch) (06 July 2021)

There was no evidence of apparent bias or unjudicial conduct by the judge; the recusal application was an attempt to relitigate substantive findings. The stay application was an abuse of process as the Ukrainian proceedings were known but not raised at the appropriate time, and in any event, neither Article 34 BRR nor case management principles justified a stay. The costs claimed by the claimant were excessive but a summary assessment was appropriate.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 2129 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: WWRT Limited; First Defendant: Sergiy Tyshchenko; Second Defendant: Olena Tyshchenko
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil (business and Property Courts, Chancery Division) / Interlocutory Applications (recusal and Stay Applications)
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Recusal of Judge, Stay of Proceedings, Abuse of Process, Case Management, Costs Assessment
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Recusal of Judge Stay of Proceedings Abuse of Process Case Management Costs Assessment

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 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WWRT Limited

Claimant

Sergiy Tyshchenko

First Defendant

Olena Tyshchenko

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (business and Property Courts, Chancery Division) / Interlocutory Applications (recusal and Stay Applications)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge should recuse herself for apparent bias
  2. 2 Whether proceedings should be stayed due to related Ukrainian litigation
  3. 3 Whether the stay application constitutes an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence of apparent bias or unjudicial conduct by the judge; the recusal application was an attempt to relitigate substantive findings. The stay application was an abuse of process as the Ukrainian proceedings were known but not raised at the appropriate time, and in any event, neither Article 34 BRR nor case management principles justified a stay. The costs claimed by the claimant were excessive but a summary assessment was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • Recusal application by Mr Tyshchenko dismissed
  • Stay application by Mr Tyshchenko dismissed as abuse of process and on the merits