Ovcharenko & Anor v Investuk Ltd & Anglo-Sino Capital Partners Ltd [2017] EWHC 2114 (QB) (16 June 2017)

Ovcharenko & Anor v Investuk Ltd & Anglo-Sino Capital Partners Ltd [2017] EWHC 2114 (QB) (16 June 2017)

D2 has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim because section 39(3) FSMA 2000 imposes statutory liability for D1's defaults, regardless of any alleged excess of authority by D1 under the client agreement. D2 is not a party to the arbitration agreement and cannot rely on the arbitration clause to stay proceedings. D2 also failed to act promptly in seeking to set aside the default judgment. Therefore, the application to set aside the default judgment and for a stay is dismissed.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 2114
Parties
Claimant: Anna Ovcharenko; Claimant: Yury Moskaltsov; Defendant: Investuk Ltd; Defendant: Anglo-Sino Capital Partners Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application to Set Aside Default Judgment and Application for Stay Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.9
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Arbitration Clause, Appointed Representative Liability, Section 39 Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, Setting Aside Judgment, Agency, Due Diligence, Negligence
Financial Services Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Default Judgment Arbitration Clause Appointed Representative Liability Section 39 Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 Setting Aside Judgment +3 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anna Ovcharenko

Claimant

Yury Moskaltsov

Claimant

Investuk Ltd

Defendant

Anglo-Sino Capital Partners Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application to Set Aside Default Judgment and Application for Stay Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.9

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the default judgment against the second defendant (D2) should be set aside under CPR 13.3
  2. 2 Whether D2 can rely on the arbitration clause in the client agreement to stay proceedings under Arbitration Act 1996 s.9
  3. 3 Whether D2 has a real prospect of successfully defending the claim

Ratio Decidendi

D2 has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim because section 39(3) FSMA 2000 imposes statutory liability for D1's defaults, regardless of any alleged excess of authority by D1 under the client agreement. D2 is not a party to the arbitration agreement and cannot rely on the arbitration clause to stay proceedings. D2 also failed to act promptly in seeking to set aside the default judgment. Therefore, the application to set aside the default judgment and for a stay is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application to set aside default judgment refused
  • Application for stay under Arbitration Act 1996 s.9 refused