Associate in Rosling King’s Dispute Decision Group, Hannah Sharp represented the profitable Claimant which obtained a novel anti-suit injunction in support of an professional witness sued by the Defendants in his dwelling jurisdiction.

This injunction required the withdrawal of the abusive declare made towards the professional witness within the Ukrainian courtroom. The case emphasises the Excessive Court docket’s readiness to train its discretion to grant anti-suit injunctions to guard the integrity of the English Court docket and its personal processes, even the place the case legislation is undeveloped.

Case Abstract

On 2 August 2023, the Excessive Court docket handed down one other judgment on this lengthy working and hard-fought authorized dispute, this time granting an anti-suit injunction towards the First and Second Defendants, Mr and Mrs Tyshchenko, requiring them to withdraw a declare in Ukraine towards the Ukrainian legislation professional for the Claimant, WWRT Restricted. In exercising this discretionary energy beneath s 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, Mrs Justice Bacon famous in her judgment that there’s “no case the place an anti-suit injunction has been sought on info comparable to the current”.

Background
The context of the latest judgment is a declare introduced by WWRT in relation to loans made by the now defunct Ukrainian financial institution, JSC Fortuna Financial institution, which WWRT asserts had been granted to debtors related to Mr and Mrs Tyshchenko who had no intention or technique of repaying them. The proceedings have been ongoing since September 2020, when Kelyn Bacon QC (as she then was) issued a £65 million with out discover freezing injunction towards Mr and Mrs Tyshchenko. WWRT’s software for a freezing order was supported by a report from WWRT’s Ukrainian legislation professional, who has since supplied additional professional proof on behalf of WWRT.

In October 2022, Mr Tyshchenko issued a declare in Ukraine towards WWRT’s professional, with Mrs Tyshchenko listed as a 3rd get together to it. By the declare, they sought an order recognising the conclusions of the professional in sure of his studies within the English proceedings as illegal and requiring that he recant the proof supplied in these studies. The professional’s software for closure of the declare towards him was rejected in speedy succession by the Business Court docket of Kyiv and North Business Court docket of Attraction. His enchantment to the Ukrainian Supreme Court docket was listed for listening to on 15 August 2023.

In late July 2023, WWRT made an pressing software for an anti-suit injunction requiring the declare towards the professional to be withdrawn on the premise that it’s vexatious, abusive and an illegitimate interference within the apply and process of the English Court docket.

Authorized Take a look at

The Court docket’s energy to grant an anti-suit injunction is derived from s. 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, which supplies that the Court docket might grant interim or closing injunctions the place “it seems to the courtroom to be simply and handy to take action”. This energy extends to the granting of anti-suit injunctions the place the continuation of proceedings in a overseas jurisdiction is “unconscionable”: South Carolina Insurance coverage v Assurantie Maatshappij [1987] 1 AC 24. A principal instance of that is the place the overseas proceedings are thought to be “vexatious or oppressive”.

The Resolution

On this newest improvement, Mrs Justice Bacon granted the primary of its variety anti-suit injunction towards Mr and Mrs Tyshchenko, requiring the withdrawal of the Ukrainian declare towards the professional, on the premise that it was very clearly each vexatious and oppressive. In making her choice, Mrs Justice Bacon identified the seemingly motive for the shortage of authority on this space is that it’s “extraordinarily uncommon for a celebration to proceedings to launch such a direct and unambiguous assault in a overseas courtroom on the substance of the proof given in home proceedings”.

Though comparisons had been made to Arab Financial Fund v Hashim (No. 6), Monetary Instances Legislation Studies, 23 July 1992, the place an order for an anti-suit injunction was not granted as a result of (amongst different issues) there was nothing to counsel that the US motion had been commenced to dissuade the witness from giving proof within the UK, within the current case Mrs Justice Bacon was assured that the declare was introduced by Mr Tyshchenko in a “blatant and clearly abusive try to intervene with the due strategy of the English proceedings which have by now been on foot for nearly three years”.

Commentary
While the info of this case are extremely uncommon, the choice demonstrates that the Excessive Court docket stands able to train its discretion to grant anti-suit injunctions to guard the integrity of the English Court docket and its personal processes, even the place the case legislation is undeveloped. The Decide on this case recognised the broader implications of the choice and the necessity to ship “a powerful sign to different litigants that this kind of conduct won’t be tolerated”.

For additional data, please contact companion Hannah Sharp at Rosling King LLP on hannah.sharp@rkllp.com or 0207 246 8000.

Hannah Sharp is a companion in Rosling King’s Dispute Decision Group specialising in monetary providers disputes, fraud and industrial litigation, each home and cross-border. Hannah has vital expertise of appearing for banks (funding and retail) and different monetary establishments, corporates and extremely excessive web value people on a broad vary of advanced disputes.

Rosling King LLP is a London-based legislation agency specialising in serving the wants of monetary establishments, corporates and people. For extra data please go to www.rkllp.com.