Fridman v Agrofirma Oniks LLC and another [2026] EWCA Civ 139

The Court of Appeal unanimously held that a Defendant excluded from the UK could not be served at his last known address in the UK. In doing so, the Court confirmed that it is presence, rather than residence, which is the basis for territorial jurisdiction.

Facts

The Defendant, Mr Mikhail Fridman, is a dual Russian and Israeli national who moved to the UK in 2013 and was granted indefinite leave to remain in 2019. Mr Fridman lived, until September 2023, at Athlone House in Hampstead, London.

On 15 March 2022, Mr Fridman was designated under regulations 5 and 6 of the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 and Part 1 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. Mr Fridman’s assets were frozen and he became an “excluded person” within section 8B of the Immigration Act 1971. As a result, his leave to remain in the UK ended and he was not permitted to enter the UK (the “Travel Ban”).

On 16 August 2023, the Claimants sent a letter before action to Mr Fridman at Athlone House. He did not respond.

On 27 September 2023, Mr Fridman physically left the UK and later announced that he had moved to Israel, before flying to Moscow. He continued to be the beneficial owner of Athlone House, which was staffed by employees of Athlone House Limited who reported to Mr Fridman. In the course of an unsuccessful challenge of a licence refusal by the Office of Foreign Sanctions Implementation, Mr Fridman informed the Court that he intended to return to the United Kingdom (at [9]).

The Claimants commenced proceedings on 9 February 2024 and attempted to serve the Claim Form on Mr Fridman at Athlone House numerous times between March and June 2024, and at three alternative addresses.

Mr Fridman challenged jurisdiction on the basis that he had not been validly served. The challenge was unsuccessful at first instance with the Commercial Court finding that Mr Fridman had been validly served as, despite his Travel Ban, he remained a resident of the UK and Athlone House was his “usual or last known residence” in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules (the “CPR”) rule 6.9.

The Court of Appeal’s findings

The Court agreed with Mr Fridman’s argument that the right of an English court to exercise jurisdiction over an individual is based on the principle that a person present within the jurisdiction has the benefit of the laws of the jurisdiction and, as a corollary, must submit to the process of its courts.

The Court confirmed that this principle had survived the introduction of the CPR, finding (at [72]):

“In my judgment, the common law principle that a person may only be served with process in England and Wales if he is present in England and Wales is not a mere matter of procedure. Its source is to be found within international law and the principle of territoriality.”

Although temporary absence will not negate presence for the purposes of jurisdiction, it was clear to the Court that Mr Fridman was not present at Athlone House at the date of service. Due to Mr Fridman’s Travel Ban, it would be “incoherent” for the state to claim jurisdiction over him on the ground of his presence in England and Wales and also deny him the right to be present there (at [80]).

The Court noted that it was open to the judge at first instance to take into account Mr Fridman’s expressed intention to return to Athlone House in assessing his presence, but considered it necessary to evaluate the prospects of Mr Fridman being able to put his intention into effect (at [90]-[91]). The Court found that Mr Fridman’s absence from the United Kingdom cannot be described as “temporary”, as he is legally prevented from returning to Athlone House for an indefinite period which shows no sign of ending.

What does this mean?

The decision makes it clear that service at a ‘last known residence’ under CPR 6.9 is not available where a defendant has left the jurisdiction and, as a result of steps taken by HM Government, is precluded from returning – even if they have expressed an intention to do so.

To commence proceedings against sanctioned individuals who were previously resident in the United Kingdom, but who are absent from the jurisdiction due to indefinite travel ban, claimants should seek the court’s permission to serve outside of England and Wales, and – where appropriate – then apply for substituted service.

If you would like to discuss the contents of this article further, please contact Evgenia Loewe.