Court rules on abuse of process and declaratory relief in Uzbekov v Revolut Ltd case

Introduction

In the case of Ildar Uzbekov v Revolut Limited ([2024] EWHC 98 (KB)), the High Court of Justice grapples with principles surrounding contractual rights and remedies, specifically the granting of declaratory relief and the concept of abuse of process within litigation.

Key Facts

Ildar Uzbekov’s relationship with digital payment service Revolut saw sudden termination when the company, acting on suspicions around money laundering, blocked then closed his account and refunded a transaction he received from a car dealer. Despite no financial loss due to the account’s closure, Uzbekov sought vindication through the courts by requesting a declaration that Revolut had no sound basis for suspecting him of fraudulent behavior or money laundering, asserting his ordeal caused distress and embarrassment.

Revolut challenged the claim, seeking reverse summary judgment, contending a lack of real prospect for the court to grant declaratory relief and branding the action as wasteful litigation—a disproportionate pursuit considering Uzbekov’s nominal damages claim and his admitted lack of financial loss.

Legal Principles

The case forefronts several critical legal principles on declaring relief and abuse of process:

Declaratory Relief

A declaration is a judicial statement that outlines the rights of the parties without ordering any action or awarding damages. The power to make declarations is discretionary, not absolute. The necessity for such relief to serve a “useful purpose” takes a central stage, where the test is not just the claimant’s perception of utility but an objective assessment by the court.

Jameel Abuse

Jameel (Yousef) v Dow Jones & Co Inc. [2005] EWCA Civ established the principle that bringing a case that will not yield any substantial reward or vindication does not align with the proper use of judicial resources, and thus could constitute an abuse of process. When evaluating a case for potential abuse of the court’s process, the court must consider various factors, such as the proportionality of costs involved relative to the claim’s value and significance, alongside the broader impact on court resources.

Summary Judgment

Under CPR 24.3, a summary judgment can be granted against a claimant when there is no real prospect of success on the claim and there is no other compelling reason why the case should proceed to a full hearing.

Outcomes

In Uzbekov v Revolut Limited, MR JUSTICE CHAMBERLAIN conceded that the underlying factual issues of the contract claim required trial but concurred with the defendant that declaratory relief held no substantive purpose given the concluded relationship between the parties and the acknowledged absence of financial damage. Additionally, the pursuit of declaratory relief to vindicate reputation would inadequately address the foundation of the allegations against Mr. Uzbekov.

The pursuit was declared an abuse of process, further framed by the disproportionate legal costs already accrued and projected; a situation incompatible with the CPR’s overriding objective of proportionate cost. The Particulars of Claim were struck out on this basis.

Conclusion

The decision in Ildar Uzbekov v Revolut Limited crystallizes that where relief is sought for purposes of vindication alone, without an accompanying substantial legal or practical utility, the courts are inclined to regard the matter as an abuse of process. This case reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to preventing disproportionate litigation that strays from CPR objectives, emphasizing the prudent use of available resources and cautioning against allowing claims to become vehicles for achieving purposes better suited to alternate remedies or forums.