Cherney v Deripaska [2007] EWHC 965 (Comm) (03 May 2007)

Cherney v Deripaska [2007] EWHC 965 (Comm) (03 May 2007)

Mr Cherney failed to establish a good arguable case that Mr Deripaska was resident or domiciled in England at 5, Belgrave Square, as his use of the property was infrequent and lacked the necessary permanence or continuity. Service was not validly effected as the Claim Form was not left with Mr Deripaska personally nor at his usual residence. The court refused to dispense with service, as to do so would improperly circumvent the rules for service out of the jurisdiction.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 965 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Michael Cherney; Defendant: Oleg Deripaska
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Civil Claim / Interlocutory Application on Service and Domicile
Outcome
Claim Form not duly served; application to dispense with service refused; Mr Deripaska not domiciled in England.
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Jurisdiction, Domicile, Forum Non Conveniens
Civil Procedure Private International Law Service of Process Jurisdiction Domicile Forum Non Conveniens

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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Cherney

Claimant

Oleg Deripaska

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Civil Claim / Interlocutory Application on Service and Domicile

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claim Form was duly served on Mr Deripaska under CPR 6.4 or 6.5
  2. 2 Whether Mr Deripaska was domiciled in England for the purposes of the Judgments Regulation
  3. 3 Whether the court should dispense with service under CPR 6.9

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Cherney failed to establish a good arguable case that Mr Deripaska was resident or domiciled in England at 5, Belgrave Square, as his use of the property was infrequent and lacked the necessary permanence or continuity. Service was not validly effected as the Claim Form was not left with Mr Deripaska personally nor at his usual residence. The court refused to dispense with service, as to do so would improperly circumvent the rules for service out of the jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Claim Form not duly served; application to dispense with service refused; Mr Deripaska not domiciled in England.

Orders

  • Refusal of application to dispense with service under CPR 6.9
  • Declaration that Claim Form was not duly served on Mr Deripaska