Agrofirma Oniks LLC & Anor v ABH Ukraine Limited & Ors

For service within the jurisdiction, temporary absence does not ordinarily remove a person from the court’s jurisdiction where the evidence shows an intention to return. Whether an address remains a defendant’s usual residence is a fact-sensitive, multifactorial inquiry. A distinct break in the defendant’s life is relevant but is not determinative.

An address may remain the defendant’s usual residence where ownership, family use, continuing management, expressed intention to return and arrangements for correspondence demonstrate continuity. Alternatively, it may be the defendant’s last known residence if the claimant has taken reasonable steps, assessed by reference to actual and constructively acquired knowledge, to identify the current residence. Service effected by a prescribed method within the claim form’s validity period is valid.

The claimants brought proceedings concerning statements and advice about loan participation notes. They sought to serve the third defendant, Mikhail Fridman, at Athlone House, London, which had been his family residence before he left the United Kingdom following sanctions and a travel ban.

The claimants applied for declarations that service was valid under CPR 6.15(2), or alternatively for alternative service. Mr Fridman challenged jurisdiction, contending that he was no longer resident in England and that Athlone House was neither his usual nor last known residence. The central issues were whether service at Athlone House was valid under CPR 6.9 and CPR 7.5, and whether the court should exercise jurisdiction.

1. Service and common-law jurisdiction. Temporary absence does not remove a person from the jurisdiction. Mr Fridman had consistently maintained, through his representations in earlier proceedings, that he intended to return to the United Kingdom. The court therefore had common-law jurisdiction over him.
2. Usual residence. The question required a multifactorial and fact-dependent evaluation of the quality of the absence. Although leaving the United Kingdom represented a distinct break, that did not determine whether residence had ceased. There was at least a good arguable case that Athlone House remained Mr Fridman’s usual residence. Relevant factors included his continuing ownership, its status as the family residence, his stated intention to return, the continuing challenge to his designation, active management for him and his family, and the retention of his post there pending his return.
3. Last known residence. Alternatively, Athlone House was Mr Fridman’s last known residence. The claimants had undertaken more than reasonable steps under CPR 6.9(3)-(5), including open-source, Land Registry and Companies House enquiries and consideration of other possible addresses. The available evidence did not establish a current address in Israel or Russia.
4. Effect of service. The claim form was validly served by post on 20 March 2024 and, alternatively, by hand delivery or post on later dates, each being a step prescribed by CPR 7.5. The Service Application therefore succeeded.
5. Applications and orders. The jurisdiction challenge was dismissed. Time for filing an acknowledgment of service was extended retrospectively, so the default judgment application would not proceed. The period for service of the claim form on each defendant was extended to 4 pm on 24 July 2025. The claimants received 90% of their costs, summarily assessed at £72,000.