Henry Reid in High Court in Agrofirma Oniks LLC & Or v. ABH Ukraine Ltd & Ors

The High Court of Justice has handed down judgment in the case of Agrofirma Oniks LLC & Agro UG V LLC v. ABH Ukraine Limited & Others. Henry Reid, led by Michael McLaren KC of Fountain Court, successfully acted on behalf of the claimants in a Part 11 jurisdiction challenge brought by the Third Defendant, the oligarch Mr Mikhail Fridman.

The case revolves around a dispute concerning Loan Participation Notes (LPNs) in which the Claimants, Agrofirma Oniks LLC and Agro UG V LLC, are agribusinesses and clients of the fourth defendant, PJSC Sense Bank (formerly PJSC Alfa Bank Ukraine).

The Part 11 Claim

A key issue in the case concerned the service of legal proceedings on Mr. Fridman. The claimants attempted to serve him at his UK residence, Athlone House in London. However, due to UK sanctions imposed on him in March 2022, his assets were frozen, and his leave to remain in the UK was cancelled, preventing him from returning to the country having departed in October 2023. The claimants argued that despite this, Athlone House was still his usual or last known residence.

The court therefore had to determine:

1. Whether Athlone House was Mr. Fridman’s “usual residence” at the time of service.
2. If not, whether it was his “last known residence”, and whether the claimants took reasonable steps to ascertain his current address.
3. Whether the claimants’ service of proceedings on Mr. Fridman at Athlone House was valid under CPR 6.9 and 7.5.
4. Whether the court had jurisdiction over Mr. Fridman given his absence from the UK.

Outcome of the Judgment

Justice Bryan ruled in favour of the claimants on the issue of service, holding that Athlone House in London remained Mr. Fridman’s “usual residence” despite his physical absence. Even if Athlone House were not his usual residence, it was his last known residence, and the claimants had taken reasonable steps to ascertain his current whereabouts.

Service was therefore deemed valid, meaning the proceedings against Mr. Fridman could continue in the English courts. The court also rejected Mr. Fridman’s jurisdiction challenge, confirming that he remained within the jurisdiction of English law for the purposes of this case.

Significance of the Judgment

This ruling reinforces the principle that temporary absence from a jurisdiction does not automatically remove a person from being subject to legal proceedings there. It highlights how courts consider ownership, intent, and continuity in assessing usual residence, particularly in cases involving sanctioned individuals and cross-border disputes.

Henry was Junior to Michael McLaren KC and was instructed by Janes Solicitors for the Claimants. Read the full judgment here: Agrofirma v ABH Ukraine.

Find out more

Find out more about Henry and to discuss his CV, contact Lexie Johnson on + 44 (0) 207 427 0801 or Andy Hunter on +44 (0)20 7427 4905 for a confidential discussion.

News 17 Feb, 2025