Aercap Ireland Capital Designated Activity Company & Ors v PJSC Insurance Company Universalna & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1365 (Comm)
WWRT Limited v Kostiantyn Valentynovych Zhevago
26 January 2024
[2024] EWHC 122 (Comm)
High Court
A company tried to sue a Ukrainian businessman in England for actions related to a Ukrainian bank. The judge said the case should be in Ukraine because that's where everything happened and the Ukrainian courts were working, even with the war. A late accusation of bribery wasn't enough to change the decision.
Key Facts
- •WWRT Limited (an English company, 80% owned by a Ukrainian citizen) sued Kostiantyny Zhevago (a Ukrainian citizen) in the English Commercial Court.
- •The claim arises from alleged tortious conduct by Zhevago concerning a Ukrainian bank, PJSC Finance & Credit Bank.
- •WWRT acquired its claim through two assignments: DGF (Deposit Guarantee Fund of Ukraine) to Horizon LLC, then Horizon to WWRT.
- •Zhevago challenged the English court's jurisdiction.
- •The case involved extensive expert evidence on Ukrainian law and the functioning of the Ukrainian court system during the war.
- •A late allegation of bribery against Zhevago was made by WWRT.
Legal Principles
Jurisdictional gateway for tort claims (CPR PD 6B paragraph 3.1(9)(b))
CPR PD 6B
Serious issue to be tried
Summary judgment principles (ArcelorMittal North America Holdings LLC v Ravi Ruia)
Forum conveniens (Spiliada Maritime Corpn v Cansulex Ltd)
Spiliada Maritime Corpn v Cansulex Ltd
Ukrainian Law (Civil Code of Ukraine, Articles 213, 512-514, 1166)
Civil Code of Ukraine
Outcomes
Zhevago's application to challenge the jurisdiction of the English court succeeded.
WWRT failed to establish a serious issue to be tried regarding the assignment of tortious rights, failed to show substantial and efficacious acts within the English jurisdiction, and failed to demonstrate that England was clearly and distinctly a more appropriate forum than Ukraine.
The Order of Moulder J granting WWRT permission to serve out of the jurisdiction was set aside.
WWRT failed to establish a good arguable case that its claim fell within the tort gateway for jurisdiction.
WWRT's application to adduce evidence of Zhevago's alleged bribery of a Ukrainian judge was refused.
The evidence was submitted too late, amounting to an ambush, and was insufficiently cogent to establish a real risk of injustice in the Ukrainian court system.
Similar Cases
WWRT Limited v Serhiy Tyshcheniko & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2043 (Ch)
Zephyrus Capital Aviation Partners 1d Limited & Ors v Fidelis Underwriting Limited & Ors
[2024] EWHC 734 (Comm)
Judith Susan Portrait & Anor (as Trustees of the Gatsby Charitable Foundation) v Khadijeh Minai
[2023] EWHC 1605 (Ch)
Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd v Nobu Su (aka Hsin Chi Su aka Nobu Morimoto) & Ors
[2023] EWHC 1874 (Comm)