Evison Holdings Ltd v International Company Finvision Holdings LLC & Ors

Evison Holdings Ltd v International Company Finvision Holdings LLC & Ors

The failures to disclose the applicable test for alternative service and the fact that Mr. Y had ceased to be a de jure director of Finvision in 2016 were culpable but not deliberate. The circumstances of the case, including the risk of litigation prejudice and inconsistent findings, constituted exceptional circumstances justifying alternative service. The orders for service out and by alternative means were set aside but immediately reinstated, with costs to be determined.

Parties
Claimant: Evison Holdings Limited; First Defendant: International Company Finvision Holdings LLC (also known as Finvision Holdings Limited Reg No. HE 6824 of Cyprus); Second Defendant: Artem Davydovich Avetisyan; Third Defendant: Sherzod Iskandarovich Yusupov
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contempt Application / Application to Set Aside And/or Reinstate Order for Service Out of Jurisdiction and by Alternative Means
Outcome
Order for service out of jurisdiction and by alternative means set aside and reinstated
Legal Topics
Service Out of Jurisdiction, Alternative Service, Anti Suit Injunctions, Contempt of Court, Full and Frank Disclosure, Hague Service Convention
Civil Procedure International Arbitration Commercial Law Service Out of Jurisdiction Alternative Service Anti Suit Injunctions Contempt of Court Full and Frank 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 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Evison Holdings Limited

Claimant

International Company Finvision Holdings LLC (also known as Finvision Holdings Limited Reg No. HE 6824 of Cyprus)

First Defendant

Artem Davydovich Avetisyan

Second Defendant

Sherzod Iskandarovich Yusupov

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contempt Application / Application to Set Aside And/or Reinstate Order for Service Out of Jurisdiction and by Alternative Means

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant failed to make full and frank disclosure when seeking permission for service out of the jurisdiction and by alternative means
  2. 2 Whether the order for service out and by alternative means should be set aside for non-disclosure
  3. 3 Whether the circumstances justified alternative service under the Hague Service Convention

Ratio Decidendi

The failures to disclose the applicable test for alternative service and the fact that Mr. Y had ceased to be a de jure director of Finvision in 2016 were culpable but not deliberate. The circumstances of the case, including the risk of litigation prejudice and inconsistent findings, constituted exceptional circumstances justifying alternative service. The orders for service out and by alternative means were set aside but immediately reinstated, with costs to be determined.

Court Disposition

Order for service out of jurisdiction and by alternative means set aside and reinstated

Orders

  • Order for service by alternative means on Mr. A and Mr. Y and order for service out of the jurisdiction on Mr. Y set aside and reinstated
  • Costs order to be determined after hearing counsel