Avonwick Holding Ltd v Azitio Holdings Ltd & Ors

Avonwick Holding Ltd v Azitio Holdings Ltd & Ors

Exceptional circumstances existed due to imminent trial and litigation prejudice that would result from delay in Hague Convention service; applicants had knowledge of the claims; alternative service was justified to ensure efficient progress and binding effect of trial outcomes.

Parties
Claimant: Avonwick Holding Limited; Defendant: Azitio Holdings Limited; Defendant: Dargamo Holdings Limited; Defendant: Oleg Mkrtchan; Defendant: Sergiy Taruta; Additional Claimant: Dargamo Holdings Limited; Additional Claimant: Sergiy Taruta; Additional Defendant: Azitio Holdings Limited; Additional Defendant: Avonwick Holding Limited; Additional Defendant: Oleg Mkrtchan; Third Party Defendant: Vitali Gaiduk; Third Party Defendant: Roselink Limited; Third Party Defendant: Prandicle Limited; Third Party Defendant: Olena Gaiduk; Third Party Defendant: Gastly Holdings Limited; Third Party Defendant: Eduard Mkrtchan; Third Party Defendant: Chrystalla Argyriou; Third Party Defendant: Astrella Holdings Limited; Third Party Defendant: Etmor Investments Limited; Third Party Defendant: Eminence Equity S. A.; Third Party Defendant: MD Nominees Ltd; Third Party Defendant: Melgred Limited; Third Party Defendant: Sargis Israelyan; Third Party Defendant: Olga Shchygolyeva; Third Party Defendant: Sergei Udovenko; Third Party Defendant: Leshi Limited; Third Party Defendant: Neutral Point Holding Limited; Third Party Defendant: Lanacomo Limited; Third Party Defendant: Leadpoint Limited; Third Party Defendant: Trotio Holdings Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application (set Aside Application)
Outcome
Set Aside Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Alternative Service, Hague Convention, Case Management
Civil Procedure Service of Process Alternative Service Hague Convention Case Management

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 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Avonwick Holding Limited

Claimant

Azitio Holdings Limited

Defendant

Dargamo Holdings Limited

Defendant

Oleg Mkrtchan

Defendant

Sergiy Taruta

Defendant

Dargamo Holdings Limited

Additional Claimant

Sergiy Taruta

Additional Claimant

Azitio Holdings Limited

Additional Defendant

Avonwick Holding Limited

Additional Defendant

Oleg Mkrtchan

Additional Defendant

Vitali Gaiduk

Third Party Defendant

Roselink Limited

Third Party Defendant

Prandicle Limited

Third Party Defendant

Olena Gaiduk

Third Party Defendant

Gastly Holdings Limited

Third Party Defendant

Eduard Mkrtchan

Third Party Defendant

Chrystalla Argyriou

Third Party Defendant

Astrella Holdings Limited

Third Party Defendant

Etmor Investments Limited

Third Party Defendant

Eminence Equity S. A.

Third Party Defendant

MD Nominees Ltd

Third Party Defendant

Melgred Limited

Third Party Defendant

Sargis Israelyan

Third Party Defendant

Olga Shchygolyeva

Third Party Defendant

Sergei Udovenko

Third Party Defendant

Leshi Limited

Third Party Defendant

Neutral Point Holding Limited

Third Party Defendant

Lanacomo Limited

Third Party Defendant

Leadpoint Limited

Third Party Defendant

Trotio Holdings Limited

Third Party Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application (set Aside Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order for alternative service under CPR 6.15 should be set aside in favour of service under the Hague Convention
  2. 2 Whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify alternative service

Ratio Decidendi

Exceptional circumstances existed due to imminent trial and litigation prejudice that would result from delay in Hague Convention service; applicants had knowledge of the claims; alternative service was justified to ensure efficient progress and binding effect of trial outcomes.

Court Disposition

Set Aside Application dismissed

Orders

  • Order for alternative service upheld
  • No need to consider Validation Application