Fridman v Agrofirma Oniks LLC & Anor [2026] EWCA Civ 139 (19 February 2026)

Fridman v Agrofirma Oniks LLC & Anor [2026] EWCA Civ 139 (19 February 2026)

A person who is subject to a state-imposed travel ban and is physically absent from the jurisdiction cannot be considered present or resident for the purposes of service under CPR 6.9. The common law requirement of presence as a substantive jurisdictional prerequisite survives the introduction of the CPR. Service at a last known address is not valid where the defendant is excluded from the UK by law and cannot lawfully return.

Citation
[2026] EWCA Civ 139
Parties
Appellant: Mikhail Fridman; Respondent: Agrofirma Oniks LLC; Respondent: Agro UG V LLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 February 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Jurisdiction, Sanctions, Territoriality, Civil Procedure Rules
Civil Procedure Private International Law Service of Process Jurisdiction Sanctions Territoriality Civil Procedure Rules

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 27 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mikhail Fridman

Appellant

Agrofirma Oniks LLC

Respondent

Agro UG V LLC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a person subject to a UK travel ban and physically absent from the jurisdiction can be validly served at their former UK residence under CPR 6.9
  2. 2 Whether the common law requirement of presence for personal jurisdiction survives the introduction of the CPR
  3. 3 Whether service at a last known address is valid where the defendant is excluded from the UK by law

Ratio Decidendi

A person who is subject to a state-imposed travel ban and is physically absent from the jurisdiction cannot be considered present or resident for the purposes of service under CPR 6.9. The common law requirement of presence as a substantive jurisdictional prerequisite survives the introduction of the CPR. Service at a last known address is not valid where the defendant is excluded from the UK by law and cannot lawfully return.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Service of the claim form on Mr Fridman at Athlone House declared invalid
  • Order setting aside service and any consequential steps