Harrington & Charles Trading Company Limited & Ors v Jatin Rajnikant Mehta & Ors
[2023] EWHC 2420 (Ch)
WWRT v Serhiy Tyshchenko & Anor
25 January 2023
[2023] EWHC 79 (Ch)
High Court
The defendants kept trying to get the case thrown out using the same old arguments. The judge said they were wasting everyone's time and refused their requests because their arguments were bad and they hadn't brought all their evidence forward earlier.
Key Facts
- •WWRT brought a fraud claim against Mr. and Mrs. Tyshchenko related to loans from JSC Fortuna Bank (2010-2014).
- •A worldwide freezing order was granted in 2020 and continued in 2021.
- •The Tyshchenkos made numerous applications to strike out or stay the claim and revoke the freezing order.
- •The current applications raise arguments previously rejected by the court.
- •The claim is based on Article 1166 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.
- •The loans were assigned from the DGF to Star Investment One LLC and then to WWRT.
- •The defendants dispute the assignment of the right to bring tort claims and the validity of the evidence used by WWRT.
Legal Principles
Strike out a statement of case if it discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim.
CPR r.3.4(2)(a)
Issues of foreign law are treated as issues of fact and proved by expert evidence.
The Kyrgyz Republic v Stans Engergy Corporation [2017] EWHC 2539 (Comm)
Abuse of process if a party fails to raise a point at an earlier hearing and later attempts to re-raise it without a significant change in circumstances.
Henderson v Henderson, Johnson v Gore Wood [2002] 2 AC 1, Koza v Koza [2020] EWCA Civ 1018
Outcomes
All four applications by the defendants were rejected.
The applications were abusive, re-raising arguments previously rejected. The defendants' arguments lacked merit, even ignoring the abuse of process.
Assignment argument rejected.
The argument was abusive, re-raising a point previously dismissed. Even on merit, the argument was not strong enough to warrant a strike out.
Banking records argument rejected.
Abusive re-raising of a previously dismissed argument; the new evidence did not support the claim.
Fraud argument rejected.
Abusive re-raising of a previously dismissed argument; the new evidence was insufficient.
DGF claims argument rejected.
Abusive re-raising of arguments that could have been, but were not, raised previously. Arguments based on DGF claims were meritless.