Verlox International Ltd & Anor v Antoshin & Ors [2023] EWHC 86 (Comm) (20 January 2023)

Verlox International Ltd & Anor v Antoshin & Ors [2023] EWHC 86 (Comm) (20 January 2023)

Permission to bring the committal applications is refused because the applicants lack standing, the applications are not in the public interest, and, except for the 22 August Application, are wholly without merit. The 22 August Application is stayed as there are no ongoing proceedings in which it could be pursued and the applicant is not a proper person to bring it.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 86 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Verlox International Ltd; Claimant: Igor Sychev; Defendant: Igor Antoshin; Defendant: Parmas Corporation; Defendant: Avec Limited; Defendant: PJSC PhosAgro; Defendant: Andrev Grigoryevich Guryev
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Committal Application / Permission Hearing for Committal Applications
Outcome
Permission to bring committal applications refused; 22 August Application stayed.
Legal Topics
Committal for Contempt, False Statements, Standing, Permission to Proceed, Public Interest in Committal
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Committal for Contempt False Statements Standing Permission to Proceed Public Interest in Committal

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Verlox International Ltd

Claimant

Igor Sychev

Claimant

Igor Antoshin

Defendant

Parmas Corporation

Defendant

Avec Limited

Defendant

PJSC PhosAgro

Defendant

Andrev Grigoryevich Guryev

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Committal Application / Permission Hearing for Committal Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission should be granted to bring committal applications for contempt against various parties for alleged false statements and use of forged documents
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have standing to bring committal applications
  3. 3 Whether the committal applications are in the public interest

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to bring the committal applications is refused because the applicants lack standing, the applications are not in the public interest, and, except for the 22 August Application, are wholly without merit. The 22 August Application is stayed as there are no ongoing proceedings in which it could be pursued and the applicant is not a proper person to bring it.

Court Disposition

Permission to bring committal applications refused; 22 August Application stayed.

Orders

  • Permission to bring the 8 July Applications is refused under CPR 81.3(5)(b).
  • The 22 August Application is stayed.