Yukos Finance BV & Ors v Lynch & Ors [2017] EWHC 1812 (Comm) (20 July 2017)

Yukos Finance BV & Ors v Lynch & Ors [2017] EWHC 1812 (Comm) (20 July 2017)

There was no material delay or non-disclosure justifying setting aside the extension of time for service; the retrospective order for alternative service in Lebanon was justified as Mr. Lynch was avoiding service and was aware of the proceedings; the court has jurisdiction over Mr. Lynch as service was effective.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 1812 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Yukos Finance B. V.; Claimant: Yukos International UK B. V.; Claimant: Stitching Administratiekantoor Yukos International; Claimant: David Godfrey; Claimant: Yukos Capital SARL; Claimant: Financial Performance Holdings B. V.; Claimant: Yukos Hydrocarbons Investments Limited; Defendant: Stephen Lynch; Defendant: Stephen Jennings; Defendant: Robert Reid; Defendant: Richard Andrew Deitz; Defendant: Robert Mark Foresman
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application / Application to Set Aside Orders Regarding Service and Jurisdiction
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Service Out of Jurisdiction, Extension of Time for Service, Alternative Service, Jurisdictional Challenge
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Service Out of Jurisdiction Extension of Time for Service Alternative Service Jurisdictional Challenge

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yukos Finance B. V.

Claimant

Yukos International UK B. V.

Claimant

Stitching Administratiekantoor Yukos International

Claimant

David Godfrey

Claimant

Yukos Capital SARL

Claimant

Financial Performance Holdings B. V.

Claimant

Yukos Hydrocarbons Investments Limited

Claimant

Stephen Lynch

Defendant

Stephen Jennings

Defendant

Robert Reid

Defendant

Richard Andrew Deitz

Defendant

Robert Mark Foresman

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application / Application to Set Aside Orders Regarding Service and Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the extension of time for service out of the jurisdiction should be set aside
  2. 2 Whether retrospective permission for alternative service in Lebanon was valid
  3. 3 Whether the English court has jurisdiction over the First Defendant

Ratio Decidendi

There was no material delay or non-disclosure justifying setting aside the extension of time for service; the retrospective order for alternative service in Lebanon was justified as Mr. Lynch was avoiding service and was aware of the proceedings; the court has jurisdiction over Mr. Lynch as service was effective.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Mr. Lynch's challenges to the orders of Phillips J. and Andrew Baker J. are dismissed.
  • Application for a declaration that the court has no jurisdiction over Mr. Lynch is dismissed.