Dear Supporters

Many thanks for your great support and this update is my today's letter to the head of the court about the reasons why my case is classified on the court's website.

I HAVE REPEATEDLY ASKED THIS QUESTION IN VARIOUS FORMS BEFORE, BUT I HAVE NOT RECEIVED AN ANSWER.

I hope that this time the answer will be received.

30 January 2023

The Judge in charge of the Commercial Court

Mr Justice Picken 

(via CE-File and email)

Re: Case No. CL-2016-000831 

(1) Verlox International Ltd, (2) Igor Alekseevich Sychev v. (1) Igor Antoshin, (2) Parmas Corporation, (3) Avec Ltd, (4) PJSC PhosAgro, (5) Andrey Grigoryevich Guryev

      Dear Mr Justice Foxton

1. In this letter, I am addressing you not in connection with your Judgment of 20 January 2023, but as the Judge in charge.
2. I have repeatedly tried to find out (in various forms, including by applying to other Judges who were previously Judges in charge) the reasons why the CL-2016-000831 case on the Court's website is classified for public access (there is not a single document available for public viewing).
3. Unfortunately, I have not received an answer to this question. 
4. I attach screenshots from the Court's website (section "Public search")

   (1)   Of this case (CL-2016-000831); 

   (2)   Of another randomly selected case of 2016, registered earlier than case CL-2016-000831;

   (3) Of a 2020 case, in which the party (Mr Guryev) is one of the defendants in case CL-2016-000831. In this case, the claimant (Mr Gorbachev) is represented by an international law firm, unlike me, who is forced to act as a litigant in person.

5. In the first (this) case, there is not a single document available to the public, in the other two they are. In the third case, the number of documents available to the public does not fit on one page.
6. I would be very grateful if you initiated a study on reasons why the CL-2016-00831 case is actually classified from the public. The publicity of justice is one of its basic principles, which in this case is violated for reasons that I have not been able to find out for a very long time.  In this particular case, the secrecy is beneficial only to the Defendants, not the Claimants.
7. I do not think that the reasons for classifying the case materials are also a secret in themselves, especially from the party to this case. Although in Russia I was faced with a situation when, in the proceedings against a subsidiary of PhosAgro about providing me with documents necessary to protect myself from fabricated criminal prosecution, the court classified its decision for several months not only from the public, but also from me, the plaintiff. I then managed to get acquainted with the court decision, having made a lot of efforts for this and having sent many letters to the heads of courts at different levels (and I was able to get the declassification of the court decision for me, the plaintiff, only after the expiration of the time limit for its appealing). I have given this example to demonstrate (1) that it is the Defendants who are prone to excessive secrecy and (2) that the history of my relationship with them is such that nothing in it can surprise me anymore. By the way, it was within the framework of this Russian court case that I first received the forged document from the Defendants (which they then submitted to the English court), the question of which was the subject of your consideration at the hearing on 13 January[1].

Sincerely yours,

Igor Sychev

(as a litigant in person on behalf of both Claimants)

 
[1] Information about this strange story was at your disposal at the hearing on 13 January (paragraph 31 of my third affidavit with the attached document).