Agrofirma Oniks LLC & Anor v ABH Ukraine Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 300 (Comm)
This case concerns a dispute arising from Loan Participation Notes, in which the Claimants, Agrofirma Oniks LLC and Agro UG V LLC—both agribusinesses—are clients of the fourth defendant, PJSC Sense Bank (formerly PJSC Alfa Bank Ukraine).
A pivotal issue in this case concerned the service of legal proceedings on the Third Defendant, Mr. Fridman. The Claimants sought to serve him at his UK residence, Athlone House, located in London. However, as a result of UK sanctions enforced on Mr. Fridman in March 2022, his assets were frozen, and his leave to remain in the UK was withdrawn, thereby averting his return to the country after he left in October 2023. Notwithstanding these circumstances, the Claimants contended that Athlone House continued to be either his “usual” or “last known” residence.
At para 33 of the judgment, Justice Bryan stated that essentially, the Court was tasked with addressing the following key issues:
- Whether Athlone House could be considered Mr. Fridman’s “usual residence” at the time of service.
- In the alternative, whether it constituted his “last known residence,” and whether the Claimants had made reasonable efforts to ascertain his current whereabouts.
- Whether service of proceedings on Mr. Fridman at Athlone House was valid under CPR 6.9 (concerning the service of a claim form where the defendant does not provide an address for service) and CPR 7.5 (pertaining to the service of a claim form).
- Whether the court maintained jurisdiction over Mr. Fridman no longer being in the UK.
Ultimately, the court ruled in favour of the Claimants on the service issue, determining that, despite Mr. Fridman’s absence, Athlone House remained his “usual residence.” In the event that it was not regarded as his usual residence, the court accepted it as his last known residence, noting that the Claimants had taken reasonable steps to ascertain his current location. Consequently, the service was deemed valid, allowing the legal proceedings against Mr. Fridman to proceed. Additionally, the Court rejected Mr. Fridman’s jurisdictional challenge, affirming that he remained subject to the jurisdiction of English law for the purposes of the case.
The court, in its judgment, included an obiter remark, which may be of particular interest to cost lawyers and draftsmen. Justice Bryan remarked that summary assessment is inherently a broad-brush exercise, aimed at determining what is reasonable and proportionate, even when the incurred costs are substantial.
Commentary:
This case serves as a significant reminder of the necessity to thoroughly confirm service requirements before the formal service of legal documents. A meticulous approach to service procedures not only ensures compliance but also mitigates the potential for challenges or delays, thereby facilitating the smooth progression of proceedings.