Ideasoft Solutions v Kolomiets: harassment claim sent to trial despite strong argument victims were abroad

A harassment claim will proceed to trial notwithstanding that the defendant has, on the current authorities, a very strong case that it must fail as a matter of law, the High Court has held, declining to resolve the territorial reach of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 on a summary application.

In Ideasoft Solutions LLC and others v Kolomiets [2026] EWHC 1775 (KB), handed down on 16 July 2026, Mr Justice Linden refused the defendant's application for reverse summary judgement and strike-out across the harassment claim and the first claimant's defamation claims.

The claimants are Ukrainian and Estonian software development companies and their chief executive, a Ukrainian national resident in Portugal. The defendant, a former chief business development officer and 10% shareholder resident in England, is alleged to have sent emails between April and May 2025 to the CEO, senior management and shareholders during negotiations for a partial sale to investors in the United Arab Emirates, making allegations of tax evasion, money laundering, drug trafficking and links to Russian special services, coupled with demands for payment and threats to jeopardise the takeover.

The territorial point turned on a line of first instance decisions from Shakil-Ur-Rahman v ARY Network through Lawal v Adeyinka, Bukhari v Bukhari and Rzucek v Vinnicombe, holding that the tort is not complete unless the claimant experiences the harassing effect within England and Wales. Everyone alleged to have been harassed here was abroad throughout.

For the claimants, Greg Callus argued those decisions were per incuriam for failing to consider criminal authorities on extraterritoriality, notably R v Laskowski and R v NS, where the Court of Appeal applied the principle that jurisdiction exists if a substantial measure of the activities constituting the crime took place in England. In NS, Males LJ expressly declined to find Lawal of any relevance, noting the Smith (Wallace Duncan) line had not been cited there.

Linden J rejected the broader submission that harassment need not be experienced at all, finding it contrary to Supreme Court authority and based on a misreading of Baroness Hale's observation in Majrowski. He also identified powerful arguments against the substantial measure approach, including that section 14(1) shows Parliament did not intend sections 1 to 7 to protect those outside the jurisdiction.

He nonetheless found a real prospect of establishing that the authorities were decided on an incorrect basis, while noting this may require an appeal. Deciding the point now risked an appeal that proved academic, since the issue would not arise if the conduct was found insufficiently serious at trial. With the defamation and unlawful means claims heading to trial regardless, it was preferable for the facts to be found and all claims determined at first instance so the Court of Appeal need be troubled only once.

The defamation rulings were shaped by Okungami v Chia, handed down the day after the hearing. Since no double actionability was pleaded for the first claimant, its claims must be taken to concern publication in England and Wales, yet no trading reputation here was pleaded. Evidence from the CEO and chief operating officer was thin, with a single specified visit in 2023 and no client detail, but sufficed to clear the summary threshold. Linden J will direct amendment.

On serious financial loss, he found the defendant's arguments had considerably more traction, observing that the first claimant's claim gave the overall impression of being tacked on, and that the evidence was at odds with the pleaded meaning, referring to a charitable rather than venture capital fund and to concerns about a public falling out at founder level rather than the imputation complained of. Causation being fact sensitive, the point should be tested at trial once the case is properly pleaded.

Alexandra Marzec appeared with Mr Callus for the claimants; Jonathan Price KC appeared with Claire Overman for the defendant.