Background
Three software companies—Ideasoft Solutions LLC (Ukraine), Ideasoft Grupp OÜ (Estonia), and their CEO Andrii Lazorenko—sued Peter Kolomiets, their former Chief Business Development Officer, for harassment, defamation, and causing loss by unlawful means. In April 2025, a majority stake in the companies was being sold to UAE-based investors. Kolomiets, who had exited the company in early 2023 and received an exit agreement providing for conditional payments, learned of the impending takeover through non-public channels.
Between April and May 2025, Kolomiets allegedly initiated a coordinated campaign of harassment and defamation. He sent threatening emails making false accusations that Lazorenko was “under international investigation for connections with Russian intelligence and organized crime networks” operating in Albania, the UAE, and Colombia, and threatened to inform the UAE investors, news outlets including Al Jazeera, law enforcement, and key business partners. He demanded large sums of money and return of his shareholding in exchange for silence. One email to the software company Browzwear directly caused termination of a lucrative development contract, costing the claimants approximately $7,700 monthly. The defendant posted substantially similar allegations on LinkedIn to 13,000 followers, Instagram to 6,900 followers, and Facebook to 5,800 followers on 29 May 2025.
The defendant applied for strike-out or summary judgment to dispose of the harassment claims entirely and the First Claimant’s defamation claims based on alleged lack of trading reputation in England and Wales and failure to plead serious financial loss within the meaning of the Defamation Act 2013, section 1(2). The claimants separately applied to strike out the defendant’s defence as deficient in pleading. The court determined to hear the defendant’s application first.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Linden comprehensively set out the legal framework governing strike-out applications and summary judgment applications, establishing that courts must focus on the pleaded case and ask whether it is hopeless or bound to fail. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the claimants’ application should be heard first, agreeing with the defendant that addressing the threshold question of which claims survive would logically precede debate over the defence’s pleading defects. The entire hearing was consumed by argument on the defendant’s application, and the judgment was handed down on 16 July 2026 following further written submissions on 26 June 2026.
The judgment details the substantial factual record: the claimants pleaded a course of conduct involving at least 12 separately particularised harassing emails sent over six weeks, with escalating demands and false allegations designed to pressure compliance with financial and contractual demands. The alleged harassment directly resulted in documented business loss—Browzwear terminated a $7,700-per-month contract four days after receiving the “Warning Email.” The defendant’s social media posts, published to approximately 25,000 followers across three platforms, remained accessible for nearly five months before removal.
The court acknowledged the defendant’s argument that harassment requires impact on persons in England and Wales or sufficiently serious conduct, but declined to strike out at the interlocutory stage. Concerning defamation, the court noted the tension between the requirement to plead a trading reputation in the jurisdiction and the commercial reality that Ukrainian and Estonian software companies engaging with international clients (including those in Israel) reasonably maintain business reputation in England and Wales. The causative link between the defendant’s statements and Browzwear’s contract termination provided plausible pleading of serious financial loss.
Key Takeaways
- A disgruntled former employee can be held liable for harassment under the Prevention of Harassment Act 1997, sections 1(1A) and 3A, through coordinated emails threatening disclosure to investors and clients to extract money or contractual relief.
- Defamation claims based on false allegations of criminal connections and intelligence service ties are sufficiently serious where they demonstrably cause business partners to terminate contracts; pleading serious financial loss does not require actual loss to be calculated at the strike-out stage if causation is plausible.
- Courts should hesitate to strike out on preliminary applications where the facts are disputed or where fuller factual investigation at trial may alter the legal analysis, particularly in developing areas of law.
- Foreign-incorporated companies operating in international commerce establish sufficient trading reputation in England and Wales where they have business relationships with UK-connected entities or conduct material transactions visible to England and Wales markets.
Why It Matters
This judgment reinforces that the Prevention of Harassment Act 1997 extends to coordinated campaigns of threats and false accusations designed to extort money or contractual relief from business executives and their companies. The case illustrates how a single individual with inside knowledge can weaponise false allegations about criminal connections to cause significant commercial damage—here, the loss of recurring monthly revenue through direct influence over third-party commercial decision-making. The court’s treatment of the factual sufficiency of the pleading suggests the claimants have a realistic path to trial on harassment claims even where the defendant contests the seriousness or jurisdictional connection.
The judgment also clarifies that defamation law protects the commercial interests of non-UK-incorporated companies doing business internationally, and that damage causally linked to false statements about criminal or intelligence service connections suffices to plead serious financial loss. This has implications for companies operating across borders, particularly in sectors like software development and technology services where reputation for trustworthiness is paramount. The decision signals that courts will not easily dispose of such claims on preliminary applications where documented business terminations directly follow the defendant’s publications.