Gordiy v Dorofejeva & Anor [2023] EWHC 3036 (Comm) (29 November 2023)

Gordiy v Dorofejeva & Anor [2023] EWHC 3036 (Comm) (29 November 2023)

The Particulars of Claim do not currently disclose a viable cause of action against either Defendant. The First Defendant was not a party to the SPA, and the pleaded facts do not establish a tenable claim in tort or contract. Service out of the jurisdiction on the Second Defendant was invalid as the Claimant was not a party to the contract containing the English jurisdiction clause and did not obtain permission to serve out. The claim against the First Defendant is struck out, and the court declares that the claim form has not been duly served on the Second Defendant. The Claimant may apply to amend her pleadings if she can properly plead a claim for causing loss by unlawful means.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 3036 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Iryna Gordiy; First Defendant: Jekaterina Dorofejeva; Second Defendant: Target Global Early Stage Fund II LP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim / Interlocutory Applications: Strike Out and Jurisdictional Challenge
Outcome
Claim against First Defendant struck out; declaration that claim form not duly served on Second Defendant; permission to apply to amend pleadings reserved.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Jurisdictional Challenge, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Causing Loss by Unlawful Means, Breach of Contract, Companies House Filings, Statements of Truth
Contract Law Tort Law Civil Procedure Strike Out Applications Jurisdictional Challenge Service Out of Jurisdiction Causing Loss by Unlawful Means Breach of Contract +2 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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Iryna Gordiy

Claimant

Jekaterina Dorofejeva

First Defendant

Target Global Early Stage Fund II LP

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim / Interlocutory Applications: Strike Out and Jurisdictional Challenge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Particulars of Claim disclose a viable cause of action against the Defendants
  2. 2 Whether the claim against the First Defendant should be struck out for lack of tenable legal foundation
  3. 3 Whether the claim form was validly served on the Second Defendant and whether the court has jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The Particulars of Claim do not currently disclose a viable cause of action against either Defendant. The First Defendant was not a party to the SPA, and the pleaded facts do not establish a tenable claim in tort or contract. Service out of the jurisdiction on the Second Defendant was invalid as the Claimant was not a party to the contract containing the English jurisdiction clause and did not obtain permission to serve out. The claim against the First Defendant is struck out, and the court declares that the claim form has not been duly served on the Second Defendant. The Claimant may apply to amend her pleadings if she can properly plead a claim for causing loss by unlawful means.

Court Disposition

Claim against First Defendant struck out; declaration that claim form not duly served on Second Defendant; permission to apply to amend pleadings reserved.

Orders

  • Claim against First Defendant struck out with liberty to apply to amend if a viable claim can be pleaded.
  • Declaration that claim form has not been duly served on Second Defendant (Target) as permission to serve out was not obtained.