Press release (law firm Candey fails to file a defamation lawsuit against me)

PRESS RELEASE

CANDEY threatened former client with “immediate” defamation proceedings — but did not issue them

27 August 2026

Igor Sychev, a litigant in person in long-running High Court proceedings, is publishing contemporaneous correspondence concerning threats of defamation proceedings made against him by his former solicitors, CANDEY.

The correspondence concerns allegations made by Mr Sychev that CANDEY had been improperly influenced or financially induced by persons connected with the opposing parties in his litigation.

On 28 February 2023, CANDEY wrote to Mr Sychev: “In the absence of your agreement to our proposal, we shall proceed to issue proceedings against you immediately.” The same communication demanded removal of allegedly defamatory statements and specifically referred to Latvia, stating that an English court judgment would be enforceable there and that CANDEY would seek to enforce any judgment debt against him in Latvia.

Mr Sychev rejected CANDEY’s proposal. On 7 April 2023, he asked whether the threatened proceedings had actually been issued and, if not, why and whether CANDEY intended to issue them. He also offered to accept service by email.

No such defamation proceedings were subsequently issued. On 2 August 2023, after 153 days had elapsed since CANDEY had announced that proceedings would be issued “immediately”, Mr Sychev again asked whether the proceedings had been filed and raised the possibility that the threat had been intended to intimidate him and Change.org.

The purpose of publishing the correspondence is to allow the public to examine the contemporaneous record and to ask a straightforward question:

Why were proceedings said to be imminent if CANDEY ultimately did not issue them?

The issue is of public interest because the threatened proceedings concerned allegations of alleged corruption and the conduct of legal representatives involved in substantial litigation. Mr Sychev is preparing a crime report concerning the circumstances described in the correspondence and will provide the underlying documents to the appropriate authorities.

Mr Sychev’s position concerning the underlying allegations remains unchanged. He continues to allege that CANDEY was improperly influenced or financially induced by persons connected with the Defendants.

CANDEY is invited to identify any material factual inaccuracy in this account and to provide any substantive explanation for the apparent discrepancy between its statement that proceedings would be issued “immediately” and the subsequent absence of such proceedings.