In a judgment handed down on 7 April 2025 in Okuashvili & Ors v Ivanishvili & Ors [2025] EWHC 829 (Ch), Mr Justice Rajah has found that various claims sought to be brought against various Georgian individuals, including the former Prime Minister of Georgia, the former Prosecutor General of Georgia, the former Minister of Sports and Youth Affairs and the former Minister of Economy, Industry and Trade have no real prospect of success. As a result, these claims will not be heard in England and/or have been summarily dismissed.

Simon Atrill KC and Christopher Monaghan, instructed by Mishcon de Reya LLP, acted for one of the successful Defendants – the former Georgian Ambassador to Russia. The English court found that all claims sought to be brought against him had no real prospect of success.

The claim related to a Georgian patent owned by one of the Claimants’ companies, its alleged infringement and devaluation, and an alleged attempt to force a merger of the Claimants’ companies with another company, for the benefit of the Defendants (“Claim 2”). A separate, but related, claim was brought against some of the Defendants in respect of the alleged extortion of the Claimant (“Claim 1”).

In both Claim 1 and Claim 2, the court determined that there was no serious issue to be tried in relation to most of the causes of action. Moreover, in Claim 1, the Claimants were found to have breached their duty of full and frank disclosure in respect of the order granting permission to serve out of the jurisdiction. The court held that the true position was “a world away” from that presented at the service out stage and that it was “deeply troubling that the inherent problems in this case were not drawn clearly to the Deputy Master’s attention on a without notice application on paper”. The court set aside the previous order which had permitted service of the claim on all Defendants in Claim 1.

The judgment provides extensive guidance as to the correct approach to jurisdiction challenges, including in relation to whether there is a serious issue to be tried, whether the court should exercise jurisdiction, the relevance of English exclusive jurisdiction clauses in multi-party proceedings and the importance of the duty of full and frank disclosure in ex parte applications.

The full judgment can be found here.