Tag: Anchor defendant

Posted on

Beverage City v Advance Magazine. The CJEU adopts flexible approach to anchor defendant mechanism in Trademark cases.

I have been absolutely swamped in recent months and as a result, the blog has suffered. In coming up for some air, I decided to first tackle some of the oldest drafts in my blog queue. First up is CJEU C-832/21 Beverage City & Lifestyle GmbH et al v Advance Magazine Publishers Inc held let’s say a little while ago (September 2023; did I flag I have been busy?) which in essence clarifies CJEU Nintendo.

The EU Trademark Regulation 2017/1001 has lex specialis conflict of laws provisions viz Brussels Ia. However it does not specify an anchor mechanism and therefore [26] Article 8(1) Brussels Ia  applies in full.

I discussed Richard de la Tour AG’s Opinion here. As I summarised when I tweeted the judgment, the CJEU has essentially followed the AG’s suggestion of a flexible interpretation of the A8(1) conditions:

with respect to the the A8(1) (compare CJEU The Tatry) condition relating to the existence of the “same situation of law”, this [31] “appears to be satisfied” (final check is for the national court) where the claim concerns the protection of claimant’s exclusive right over EU trade marks, which is based on EU trademark law identical to all EU Member States. [29] Any difference in the legal bases under national law of claims relating to that protection is irrelevant to the assessment of the risk of conflicting decisions.

further, with respect to the condition of “same situation of fact”,  [37]

“the existence of a connection between the claims concerned relates primarily to the relationship between all the acts of infringement committed rather than to the organisational or capital connections between the companies concerned. Similarly, in order to establish the existence of the same situation of fact, particular attention should also be paid to the nature of the contractual relationship between the customer and the supplier.”

[38] Anchor defendant Beverage City & Lifestyle was connected to Beverage City Polska by an agreement for the exclusive distribution of the energy drink ‘Diamant Vogue’ in Germany.

“That exclusive contractual relationship between those two companies may make it more foreseeable that the acts of infringement of which they are accused may be regarded as concerning the same situation of fact, capable of resulting in a single court having jurisdiction to rule on the claims brought against all of the actors who committed those acts.”

The CJEU throughout the judgment emphasises the sound administration of justice objective supporting the joinder mechanism.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 4th ed. 2023, 2.505 ff, 2.518.

Posted on

Bourlakova v Bourlakov. Limitation periods and the Rome II procedural carve-out; the UK-EU Withdrawal Agreement and amended Brussels Ia claims; abuse of the anchor defendant mechanism; and a deferred A33-34 stay application.

This is possibly the longest title of any of my posts and rightly so for the issues in current judment are extensive. Bourlakova & Ors v Bourlakov & Ors (Rev1) [2023] EWHC 2233 (Ch) is a follow-up to Bourlakova v Bourlakov [2022] EWHC 1269 (Ch) which I discuss here; in the meantime Mr Bourlakov has passed away, leaving the other defendants.

Claimants ask for permission to amend their PoC (Particulars of Claim) including the proposed joinder of an additional claimant. Some of the Defendants have themselves made three related applications, namely (a) to adjourn the hearing of the Claimants’ amendment applications (b) for permission to rely on further evidence and (c) for a stay under A33 or 34 Brussels Ia of such amended claims for which the Claimants may be given permission.

The case first of all raises an interesting discussion on applicable limitation periods (attached to Panama law as the lex causae under Rome II) as compared to carved-out procedural issues under Rome II (and English residual conflicts law), subject to English law as lex fori. It then discusses a number of jurisdictional issues.

First, on the limitation periods, discussed by Smith J [56] ff against the background of the Panamian Penal Code (‘PC’). Of note is that defendants only have to raise a reasonably arguable limitation defence in relation to these new damages claims (hence the discussion need not contain the Alfa and Omega of the issues) and it is worthwhile to see the competing arguments in full [64] ff (footnotes omitted):

Panamanian law admits of a civil claim in damages for those guilty of a criminal offence. The specific offences relied upon by the Claimants are those identified in Articles 220, 243 and/ or 253 PC. Although the route by which this is achieved is contentious, it is common ground that Panamanian law governs the question of any available limitation defence to claims brought under these articles. It is also common ground that the damages claims could be brought in Panama in different ways, namely

(i) within criminal proceedings;

(ii) before the civil courts without awaiting the outcome of any criminal trial; or

(iii) before the civil courts after the criminal court has issued its final liability ruling.

[Defendants] say that if, as here, a claim for civil damages arising from alleged criminal acts under Articles 128 and 129 PC is filed without a criminal conviction having first been obtained or in the absence of criminal proceedings, this would have to be submitted as an extra-contractual or tortious claim under Article 1644 of the Civil Code (CC) which provides that:-

“Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, through fault or negligence, is bound to repair the damage caused. If the act or omission is attributable to two or more persons, each of them shall be jointly and severally liable for the damage caused.“

[Defendants] also say that the relevant limitation period for such a claim is one year by operation of Article 1706 CC which provides:-

“The civil action to claim indemnification for slander or insult or to demand civil responsibility for the obligations resulting from guilt or negligence to which Article 1644 refers, shall prescribe in the term of one (1) year, counted from the moment in which the victim knew.

If criminal or administrative action is timely initiated for the facts foreseen in the previous paragraph, the prescription of the civil action shall be counted from the moment when the criminal judgment or the administrative resolution became firm, as the case may be.

For the recognition of the civil claim, in no case is the intervention of the criminal jurisdiction essential.”

The Claimants disagree with this analysis. They say that a claim for civil damages for an alleged criminal act may be brought directly under Articles 128 and 129 PC (without regard to Article 1644 CC) by operation of Article 977 CC which provides that :-

“Civil obligations arising from crimes or offences shall be governed by the provisions of the Penal Code.”

The Claimants say that the applicable limitation period for a claim under Articles 128 and 129 PC is seven years by operation of Article 1701 CC which provides that:-

“Actions in personam for which there is no special limitation period shall prescribe in seven years.”

This is where the Rome II procedural carve-out becomes relevant, and I will limit the discussion here to the Rome element: [71]

Before which court in Panama any claim could be asserted is a matter of procedure (whether considered under Rome II or the common law). According to Dicey, Morris & Collins on the Conflict of Laws (16th ed., at [4-074]), this includes the question whether a civil action can be brought in respect of alleged criminal acts before criminal proceedings have been taken. Since the English court is only concerned with the relevant foreign law as it applies to matters of substance, the Claimants are entitled to rely on the limitation period which remains available under Article 116 PC even if criminal proceedings have not begun and may not yet eventuate.

[72 [Defendants] say that there is a world of difference between the English court ignoring as a bar to recovery a procedural requirement for criminal proceedings prior to the commencement of a civil action (a proposition from which they do not demur) and the broader proposition (from which they do) that, where multiple potential routes for bringing civil damages claims are available locally, it matters not which particular procedural route the claimant has, in fact, adopted. The Claimants have brought a claim where there has been no criminal conviction as they were entitled to do so under Panamanian law. Having done so, the limitation period is one year. No question of having or failing to comply with local procedural requirements arises.

[73]

I understand the logic of the Claimants’ position that, being a matter of procedure, it is irrelevant which particular course the Claimants may, in fact, have pursued in this case. However, it seems to me that the distinction between the position indicated in Dicey, where the need for a criminal conviction is a bar to the commencement of a civil action, and the position here, where multiple routes are potentially available, may, in fact, be more meaningful than the Claimants suggest. I am therefore unable to say, without more direct authority on the point at least, that the [defendants’] limitation defence falls short of the reasonably arguable threshold on this account.

yet on the point of the actual damages sought, and other elements of the claim, the defence does fall short and the eventual conclusion is that the limitation defence fails. The judgment is a bit dense to read on the factual elements of the various claims however its overall emphasis on procedure v lex causae is really quite relevant.

The judgement subsequently discusses the jurisdictional issues with given the amendment of the claims, a shift from the alternative Monegask forum before Trower J, to [107]Panama or Florida now the suggested alternative fora to England.

[108] The jurisdictional issues arising on these amendment applications are whether:-

(i) despite the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, the Brussels Recast (including Article 8(1)) applies to the proposed new claims against the Kazakovs and Mr Anufriev;

(ii) in relation to the Claimants’ proposed new claims subject to the common law regime, England, Panama or Florida is clearly and distinctly the appropriate forum;

(iii) the Claimants’ proposed new claims against the ‘anchor defendant’, Leo Holding, are artificial and abusive such that the amendment applications fail for lack of jurisdiction, whether through their inability to invoke Article 8(1) of the Brussels Recast or the relevant jurisdictional gateway at common law;

(iv) Gatiabe is a ‘necessary or proper’ party with respect to the proposed new claims concerning the ownership of that company; and

(v) if the EU jurisdictional regime does apply to the Kazakovs, whether a stay should be granted under Articles 33 and 34 of the Brussels Recast of any new claims the Claimants might be permitted to advance.

(i) Application of Brussels Ia at all following the UK-EU Withdrawal Agreement: “legal proceedings instituted before the end of the transition period”

Article 67.1(a) WA provides that “in respect of legal proceedings instituted before the end of the transition period and in respect of proceedings or actions related to such legal proceedings pursuant to Articles 29, 30 and 31 of [the Brussels Recast]”, the provisions of the Brussels Recast shall continue to apply. Are permitted amendments caught by ‘proceedings instituted’? [116-117] the judge, referring to Simon v Taché, that Article 67 WA preserves the applicability of Brussels Recast to “proceedings” and not to particular claims or, here, unamended claims in proceedings.

(ii) and (iii) Abuse of the anchor defendant mechanism

The judge [128] sees no reason under BIa to conclude that claimants’ claims against Leo Holding are artificial, abusive or do not reflect a genuine intention to sue the ‘anchor defendant’, and repeats that [134] conclusion under the obiter English gateway.

(iv) a lengthy and largely obiter forum non conveniens discussion ends [212] with both Florida and Panama being rejected  as a more appropriate forum, and (v) [213] the A33-34 stay was not discussed at hearing but, it seems, may be revived at a later stage (which would be highly relevant) and therefore [223] has been deferred.

Quite the judgment.

Geert.

Posted on

Athenian Brewery and Heineken v Macedonian Thrace Brewery. Interesting incoming CJEU reference on mother corporation’s imputability viz daughter’s competition law infringement, in the context of anchor jurisdiction for follow-on damages.

Update 26 06 2023 The Dutch SC questions referred to the CJEU are now here 

In Athenian Brewery and Heineken v Macedonian Thrace Brewery ECLI:NL:HR:2023:660, the Dutch Supreme Court is likely to refer to the CJEU on the approach to ‘relatedness’ in competition law cases, required to substantiate anchor jurisdiction. It is the Greek authorities that have held that  Heineken’s Greek daughter, in which it held close to 99% of shares, had infringed competition law.

Competition law works with an assumption of attributability of daughter undertakings’ infringements to their mother corporation: see CJEU ENI and recently C-377/20 SEN /AGCM. The SC now should like to ask the CJEU how that assumption relates to Article 8(1) Brussels Ia’s anchor defendant mechanism, which requires claims to be ‘closely related’, whether the case needs to be distinguished from CJEU CDC seeing as it is the Greek, not the EU competition authorities which held the infringement, and what impact the issue has on the assessment required per CJEU Universal Music and Kolassa.

An impending reference of note.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, Heading 2.2.13.1.

Posted on

Stichting FX Claims v Natwest Markets. Amsterdam court rejects anchor, locus delicti commissi and forum necessitatis jurisdiction ia viz UK defendants in FOREX Cartel damages claim.

In FX Claims v Natwest Markets ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2023:1789, the first instance court at Amsterdam has rejected jurisdiction against the non-Dutch incorporated defendants (from the UK, the US, and Switserland) in a follow-on cartel damages case triggered by the European Commission’s decisions re manipulation of Forex Trading (known as Three Way Banana Split, Essex Express, and Sterling Lads, after the chatrooms in which the rigging was organised).

Stichting FX Claims was established by the US law firm that acts as third party litigation funder.

[6.3] the jurisdictional analysis takes place under Brussels IA for the Dutch-incorporated anchor defendant, Lugano II (referred to by the court as EVEXII) for the Swiss-incorporated defendant, and residual Dutch rules for all the others. However other than for the anchor defendant, the test is always the same (Dutch residual PIL instructs (see the Dutch Supreme Court in ‘Moldavia’) the courts to assess the claims using EU rules and CJEU authority): whether the claims against all defendants are so closely connected so that the sound administration of justice suggests it is expedient to hear them together, unless the claim is solely brought for the purpose of taking the defendant concerned away from their natural, domicile jurisdiction. Claimant resorts ia to the economic unit theory from EU competition law (see eg CJEU ENI) to support its anchoring unto a Dutch corporate vehicle of Natwest.

However [6.19] the Dutch Natwest SPV at the time of the infringements was not a direct daughter of the Natwest vehicle to whom the EC Decisions were addressed, and the claimant’s attention to the anchor defendant’s activities in their claim, is far underdeveloped [6.20]. With both the legal and the factual circumstances of anchor defndant being so radically different to those of the other defendants, the court finds [6.23] that the claims against it or not ‘closely related’ let alone so closely related so as to trigger expediency of joinder.

[6.31] Claimant’s argument that the cartelists’ activities concerned the whole of the EEA, including The Netherlands, is found not to suffice to identify Handlungsort (locus delicti commissi) in The Netherlands, neither [6.36] to locate locus damni Erfolgort in The Netherlands (here the court referred to CJEU CDC, flyLAL, and Volvo Trucks: damage needs to be shown for each individual claimant) other than for 3 of the parties represented in the claim, who have their corporate domicile in The Netherlands.

[6.37] a call upon the effet utile of the Damages Directive 2014/104 is rejected for that Directive is held not to include jurisdictional rules.

Finally the Stichting [6.43] attempts to establish jurisdiction under the Dutch forum necessitatis rule, referring to the practical challenges in suing outside the EU, the impossibility for non-EU, including UK courts to refer if need be to the CJEU (compare, in subsidiary fashion, Butcher J in Mercedez-Benz), the high costs involved in claiming in the UK, and, again, the effet utile of the Damages Directive. None of these impress the court which, referring to the need to apply forum necessitatis strictly, referring to there not being a serious suggestion that no fair trial will be guaranteed in the UK, and to the absence in EU statutory law or CJEU authority of a rule that EU competition law claims ought to always be judged by a court in the EU.

The judgment illustrates that much as the anchor defendant mechanism offers interesting opportunities, it cannot be used opportunistically.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, Heading 2.2.13.1.

Posted on

Mercedez-Benz v Continental Teves. Post Brexit, follow-on cartel damages claims may well (and do) crash on forum non conveniens grounds.

In Mercedes-Benz Group AG & Anor v Continental Teves UK Ltd & Ors [2023] EWHC 1143 (Comm)  Butcher J set aside permission for service out of the jurisdiction (against EU-incorporated defendants) in a follow-on damages claim following the European Commission’s Hydraulic Braking system cartel findings.

The UK parties are the anchor defendants. Pre-Brexit, the case against the non-UK defendants would have been brought under A8(1) Brussels Ia and the abuse threshold per CJEU CDC would have undoubtedly not been met.

The attractive UK discovery rules were mentioned by claimants as an important reason to anchor the case in the UK. On that point [25] the judge held per Spiliada‘s instruction [as a general rule, the court will not be deterred from granting a stay or refusing permission to serve out simply because the claimant will be deprived of a ‘legitimate personal or juridical advantage’, such as damages on a higher scale or a more generous disclosure regime, unless it is shown through cogent evidence that there is a risk that substantial justice will not be done in the natural forum] that substantial justice could not be done in Germany, if it was an available forum.

Butcher J overall [26] held that Germany is an available forum (in the case of the German defendants by reason of both A4 and A7(2) [locus delicti commissi] Brussels Ia, and in the case of the UK defendant by reason of the German forum connexitatis rules), with which the dispute has its closest and most real connexion, and which may be described as the natural forum for the present dispute.

The nature of the infringing conduct, causation and damage all overwhelmingly took place in Germany, witnesses largely have German as their mother tongue. [51] counsel for claimants makes an interesting point that matters of convenience ought not to weigh in favour of cartelists (essentially a nemo auditur application), however, the judge holds that ‘in relation to the matters which will be in issue, there has been no finding that Mercedes are right, or the Defendants wrong.

Further and importantly [albeit only as an additional argument: [57]: ‘I should state, however, that I do not regard this factor as decisive. My conclusion on the natural forum would have been the same without it’], [56] the judge with respect to applicable law points to the disadvantage of England and Wales given the impossibility to refer to the CJEU

While the courts of England and Wales are obviously very used to applying EU law, and until recently did so as being directly applicable, it is the case that since the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, UK courts cannot make preliminary references to the CJEU in respect of questions of the interpretation of EU law. While the Claimants say that a reference to the CJEU in respect of the interpretation of a Settlement Decision would be unusual, it cannot be said to be unprecedented.

Conclusion [58]

I am of the clear view that the forum with which the dispute has its closest and most real connexion is Germany, which is the natural forum for the dispute. The case has, in reality, very limited connexions with England and Wales, and it is not one, unlike very many which come before this court, where the parties have consensually chosen England and Wales as the forum for their disputes. The case has, by contrast, strong (and certainly much stronger) connexions with Germany.

Geert.

Posted on

Richard de La Tour AG on trademarks and anchor jurisdiction in Beverage City & Lifestyle.

I am on a break with the family until after Easter, hence only slowly treating myself to writing up blog posts. There are one or two in the queue, and I hope to be clearing them before long. ]

In C‑832/21 Beverage City & Lifestyle GmbH v Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. Richard de la Tour AG Opined a few weeks back. The claim is for trademark infringement between a US domiciled holder of an EU Trademark, and its EU suppliers in Poland and Germany. The AG suggest Article 8(1)’s joinder mechanism may apply in the case, provided the claimant in limine litis (at the start of proceedings) prove the anchor defendant’s role in the chain of infringements.

Background is the Union Trademark Regulation 2017/1001, which has separate rules on jurisdiction discussed in ia AMS Neve, however it leaves A8(1) Brussels Ia’s anchor defendant mechanism untouched.

(34) ff the AG uses the opportunity to clarify CJEU Nintendo,  with respect to Article 8)1)’s condition of ‘same situation in law’: the AG suggests the Court clarify that the application of different national laws as a result of intellectual property rights’ territorial scope, does not stand in the way of the situation being the same in law in the case of a Union trademark.

Next the AG discusses the issues also of relevance in ia CJEU C‑145/10 Painer, namely the question of sameness in fact, and argues for a flexible interpretation despite the defendants at issue not being contractually linked. He suggests inter alia that it would run against the intention of the Regulation to force the claimant into proving the anchor defendant be the main instigator of the infringement. Along similar lines, that the anchor defendant is not a corporation itself but rather one of its directors, with domicile in a different Member State, does not in the view of the AG prevent him being used as anchor defendant, provided (77) claimant prove at the start of proceedings that the director actively engaged in the infringement or should have known about it but did not stop it.

One can see merit in the AG’s approach in that it, as he also suggests, addresses the issue of abuse of the anchor defendant mechanism. On the other hand, this engagement with some of the merits of the case always raises the issue of how intensive that can /ought to be at the jurisdictional stage without leading to a ‘mini’ trial’. It may be preferable simply to hold that as a director of a corporation, one should not be surprised to be used as jurisdictional anchor for that corporation’s infringements, in one’s place of domicile.

Geert.

EU Private international law, 3rd ed. 2021, 2.482 ff.

Posted on

X v PayPal. Questionable Dutch compulsory settlement jurisdiction reignites discussion similar to English scheme of arrangement tourism. Also raises the question whether compulsory settlements are ‘contracts’ under Rome I.

The Dutch first instance judgment in Groningen  earlier this month, in X v PayPal (Europe) S.a.r.l. & Cie S.C.A., sees claimant debtor essentially seeking a compulsory settlement – CS. PayPal (established in Luxembourg) is the only debtor refusing the settlement proposed by claimant’s bank.

The CS is not listed in Annex I to the Insolvency Regulation 2015/848 (always check for the consolidated version, for the Annex is frequently updated by the Member States’ communication of proceedings to be included). This is where the discussion of scope of application could and should end.

Instead, the judge tests the CS against A1(1)’s abstract criteria. She decides there is neither divestment of assets, nor a temporary stay of individual enforcement proceedings.

This then raises the applicability of Brussels Ia. Seeing as the judge finds the action does not meet with the CJEU F-Tex criteria (Brussels Ia’s insolvency exception only applies to actions which derive directly from insolvency proceedings and are closely connected with them), she holds that Brussels Ia’s ‘insolvency’ exception is not triggered and that BIa applies.

The judge then cuts the corner which English courts in schemes of arrangement have often cut, namely to consider the willing debtors, domiciled in The Netherlands, as ‘defendants’ per Brussels Ia, hereby triggering Article 8(1) BIa’s anchor defendant mechanism. The judge justifies this by stating that the other creditors are interested parties and that it is in the interest of the sound administration of justice that the CS be discussed viz the interested parties as a whole. That may well be so, however in my view that is insufficient reason for A8(1) to be triggered. A8(1) requires ‘defendants’ in the forum state, not just ‘interested parties’. The suggestion that a co-ordinated approach with an eye for all interested parties, justifies jurisdiction, puts A8(1)‘s expediency cart before the A4 ‘defendant’-horse.

The judge then also cuts corners (at least in her stated reasons) on the applicable law issue, cataloguing this firmly in Rome I. She argues that even if the CS is a forced arrangement, replacing a proposed contract which party refused to enter into, it is still a contractual arrangement. That is far from convincing.

Equally not obvious is as the judge holds, that  per A4(2) Rome I, the party required to effect the ‘characteristic performance’ of a compulsory settlement, is the claimant-debtor of the underlying debt, leading to Dutch law being the lex causae.

The judgment at the very least highlights the continuing elephant in the restructuring tourism room, namely the exact nature of these proceedings under Brussels Ia, EIR and Rome I.

Geert.

Posted on

The Brazilian orange juice cartel: successful claimants on among others Article 34 Brussels Ia ‘forum non light’, with lingering doubts on A4 ‘domicile’..

Update 17 01 2023 my article on Articles 33-34 has now been published: Lis Pendens and third states: the origin, DNA and early case-law on Articles 33 and 34 of the Brussels Ia Regulation and its “forum non conveniens-light” rules, The link in the title should give free access to the first 50 takers, and I assume link to the review for those that come after.

Viegas & Ors v Cutrale & Ors [2021] EWHC 2956 (Comm) (05 November 2021) concerns an alleged cartel between several Brazilian companies which produce orange juice, including Sucocítrico Cutrale: 3rd defendant. The other two defendants, Mr Cutrale Sr and Mr Cutrale Jr,  are natural persons Claimants are orange farmers who are all domiciled in Brazil.  The claim relates to alleged antitrust infringements committed in Brazil and said to have restricted competition in markets in Brazil, causing harm to the Claimants there.

Claimants claim to be entitled to maintain proceedings in England and Wales on the bases that:

i)                   although Sucocítrico Cutrale is a Brazilian company, it has its central administration in London and is therefore domiciled in the UK pursuant to A63(1)(b) Brussels Ia;

ii)                 alternatively, the Claimants were entitled to serve Sucocítrico Cutrale, pursuant to CPR 6.3(c)/6.9(2) at a “place within the jurisdiction where [it] carries on its activities; or any place of business of the company within the jurisdiction”.

iii)               Cutrale Snr is domiciled in England; and

iv)               Cutrale Jnr is domiciled in Switzerland and the claims against him are so closely connected with the claims against Sucocítrico Cutrale and Cutrale Snr that it is expedient to hear and determine them together so as to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments, pursuant to Article 6 Lugano Convention.

The Defendants’ position is in outline as follows:

Sucocítrico Cutrale

i)                   Sucocítrico Cutrale has its “central administration” in Brazil and is therefore not domiciled in the UK for the purpose of A63(1)(b) BIa.  There is therefore no right to bring proceedings against the company in England under Article 4(1). The court must apply common law principles to determine jurisdiction.

ii)                 Alternatively, the claims against Sucocítrico Cutrale should be stayed under A33 and/or 34 BIa because of ongoing proceedings in Brazil concerning the alleged cartel.

iii)               The Claimants were not entitled to serve Sucocítrico Cutrale at an address within the jurisdiction, and so the company has not been validly served.

iv)               Alternatively, applying common law forum non conveniens principles, Brazil is the proper place for the claims against Sucocítrico Cutrale and the court should not exercise jurisdiction against it.  The claims against Sucocítrico Cutrale should be stayed even if (contrary to the Defendants’ primary case) Cutrale Snr is domiciled in England. Cutrale Snr has confirmed that he would submit to the jurisdiction of the Brazilian court. The risk of inconsistent judgments in England and Brazil therefore carries little weight because it would be caused by the Claimants’ unnecessary pursuit of litigation in England. In such circumstances, the court may stay the claims against the foreign defendant notwithstanding the presence of a UK domiciled anchor defendant (reference is made to Vedanta Resources plc v Lungowe [2020] AC 1045 . I flagged the ‘submission to foreign jurisdiction’ issue in my review of Vedanta).

Cutrale Snr

v)                  Cutrale Snr is not domiciled in the UK. There is therefore no right to bring proceedings against him under A4(1) BIa.

vi)               Further or alternatively, the court should stay the claims against Cutrale Snr pursuant to A34 BIa because of the ongoing proceedings in Brazil.

vii)             Although Cutrale Snr was served in the jurisdiction, applying common law forum non conveniens principles Brazil is the proper place for the claim.  Accordingly, the court should decline jurisdiction.

Cutrale Jnr

viii)           If neither Sucocítrico Cutrale nor Cutrale Snr is English domiciled there is no basis to assume jurisdiction against Cutrale Jnr.

ix)               If Cutrale Snr is English domiciled but the claims against Sucocítrico Cutrale are to proceed in Brazil, the criteria under A6 Lugano are not met because it would be more expedient for the claims against Cutrale Jnr to be heard in Brazil alongside the claims against Sucocítrico Cutrale.

x)                  Further or alternatively, the court should stay the claims pursuant to a reflexive application of A28 Lugano Convention because of the ongoing proceedings in Brazil.

Henshaw J held that the court lacks jurisdiction over Sucocítrico Cutrale however that it does have jurisdiction over Cutrale Snr and Cutrale Jnr and  that there is no proper basis on which to stay the claims against them.

Domicile of Sucocítrico Cutrale (‘SuCu’)

A63 BIa determines corporate domicile as the place where the corporation has its (a) statutory seat; (b) central administration; or (c) principal place of business. Claimants suggest place of central administration as being in London. Anglo American came to my mind as indeed it did to counsel and judge in current case. At 31 ff a concise look into the travaux is offered as are references to CJEU case-law under freedom of establishment (including Uberseering). I would be cautious however with too much emphasis on those cases, which are judged in quite a different context to the one in a jurisdictional assessment.

SuCu are in in essence a family-run business [55]. This is also emphasised in the witness statement of Cutrale Sr himself. SuCu refer extensively to its internal by-laws and the role in same for the ‘Executive Board’ which is made up of professionals. However there is also a, by-laws sanctioned, Family Board (in which Cutrale Sr until recently had a 99% stake). The Executive Board, by defendant’s own admission [55], runs the company on a day to day basis. The Family Board seemingly meets at various places worldwide, and the role of London in the family Board’s direction is not small, given that Cutrale Sr has secretarial assistance for his business interests there, and that his daughter (who also sits on the Family Board) conducts all her business interests there [57].

In Anglo American, the CA held

 ‘the correct interpretation of “central administration” in Article 60(1)(b), when applied to a company, is that it is the place where the company concerned, through its relevant organs according to its own constitutional provisions, takes the decisions that are essential for that company’s operations. That is, to my mind, the same thing as saying it is the place where the company, through its relevant organs, conducts its entrepreneurial management; for that management must involve making decisions that are essential for that company’s operation’

[75] ff the judge does not see London as that place where the entrepreneurial management takes place. This is to some degree a factual appraisal however I I am minded to see quite strong arguments in favour of London. I do not think for instance that BIa’s DNA of predictability for the defendant knowing where it might be sued, carries too much weight here seeing as the complex structure and the diverse effective location of the Family Board’s meetings is of its own making. By failing clearly to implement one centre of entrepreneurial management, visible to outsiders, the defendant in my view brings the risk of positive conflicts of jurisdiction upon itself.  All the more so in my view in cases where, such as here, the accusation is involvement in a cartel, which is unlikely to have happened with the firm controller of the Family Board having been kept in the dark.

Alternative serving under CPR 6.9.(2) [“Any place within the jurisdiction where the corporation carries on its activities; or any place of business of the company within the jurisdiction.”] is also dismissed: [104] ff.

[112] ff the judge discusses the domicile of Cutrale Sr which, per A62(1) BIa is to be determined under English law. This [129] ff is held to be England.

Cutrale Jr being undisputably domiciled in Switserland, the question arises whether the claim against him may be anchored upon the claim against his father, per A6(2) Lugano. The judge is reminded of his own judgment in PIS v Al Rajaan. Defendants submit that if the claims against Sucocítrico Cutrale must be pursued in Brazil, it is more expedient for the claims against Cutrale Jnr to be pursued in that jurisdiction, even if the Claimants are entitled to sue Cutrale Snr as of right in England. However [142] the judge agrees with Claimants’ point that somewhat different policy considerations arise when considering the risk of inconsistent judgments within the EU (or between Lugano States), compared to the position vis-à-vis so-called ‘third States’, and that the latter context does not involve the same particular impetus to remove obstacles to the single market and observe the principle of ‘mutual trust’ between the courts of different Member States.

Whilst the claims against Cutrale Jnr are of course connected with those against Sucocitrico, they are also bound to involve important issues in common with the claims against Cutrale Snr which (subject to the issue of an A34 stay, see below) are to be pursued in England  [143].

[144] In conclusion the expediency threshold under A6 Lugano is held to have been reached.

Next, a stay of the proceedings against Cutrale Snr under A34 BIa is rejected [147] ff. Much of the A34 authority, all of which I have discussed on the blog, is flagged. The judge observes the tension between Kolomoisky and EuroEco Fuels (Poland) as to whether the power to stay depends on there being a procedural means by which the two actions could, in fact, be tried together. At [163] the judge thankfully notes the important distinction between A33-34 and A29-30, despite citing A29-30 authority with some emphasis:

I would observe, however, in disagreement with the Defendants, that despite the similarity of language it may well make a difference whether a stay is sought (a) under Article 28 as such or (b) under Article 34 or under Article 28 as applied reflexively vis a vis proceedings in a third country (see § 238 below).  The observation quoted above that there might be a presumption in favour of a stay seems considerably easier to justify in a case where the intra-EU internal market considerations referred to in § 142 above apply than where the overseas proceedings are in a non-Member State.  On the contrary, a presumption of a stay in favour of a third country state of proceedings prima facie brought as a right against a defendant in his place of domicile may well be hard to square with the fundamental principles underlying the Brussels and Lugano regimes.

At [221], too, and in an in my view important and marked departure from Justice Turner in Municipio, Henshaw J here holds that

whilst recital 24 indicates that the court should consider all the circumstances of the case, it does not follow that the court can grant a stay pursuant to Article 34 which is in substance no more than a forum non conveniens stay.  It follows that the factors listed in § 213.iv) above are relevant only insofar as they support the granting of a stay based on the Favero and Costa claims as related claims.

This puts the horse back before the cart.

At [164] ff the ‘rival’ Brasil claims are discussed, [197] of which only two predate the current E&W claim against Cutrale Sr and a conclusion [210] that these are related in a broad sense to the present claims, but that degree of relationship would be insufficient to make it expedient to stay the present claims by reference to them.

[213] ff the various arguments that a stay would be in the ‘interest of justice’ are rejected: these include in particular [216] suggestions of consolidation or joint case management, whilst theoretically possible, are unrealistic in practice (reference is made ia to the fact that none of the current Brazilian claims have been consolidated); [217] neither rival claim is likely to reach a conclusion in the reasonably foreseeable future: on the contrary, both have been mired in procedural disputes for many years.

Similar arguments are made obiter when considering an A33-34 stay against Sucocitrico (in the event the A4 analysis, above, were to be wrong): [241] ff.

At 237, the possibility of a stay of the proceedings against Cutrale Jr, under a reflexive application of A28 Lugano is rejected with mere reference to the reasons listed viz the A34 stay. The judge has to follow the Court of Appeal’s finding in Kolomoisky, that reflexive application of A28 Lugano is possible. Clearly, I submit, it is not and this will be an important point to clarify when and if the UK accede to Lugano.

The judge concludes [249] ff by obiter upholding a forum non stay. His arguments here are interesting among others for they lead to a different result than the A33-34 application – which serves to confirm the very different nature of both mechanisms.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, Heading 2.2.15.3.

Posted on

ID v LU. A voluntarily appearing defendant cannot serve as anchor for another under the English residual rules (as indeed under BIa).

In ID v LU & Anor [2021] EWHC 1851 (Comm) Pelling J discusses a challenge to jurisdiction in which each of the parties are Ukrainian nationals. Brussels Ia applies but is only engaged viz one of the defendants. Claimant and second defendant are both domiciled and resident in Ukraine. The first defendant is a Ukrainian national who is and was at all material times domiciled in an otherwise unidentified EU Member State.

Claimant alleges that the second defendant approached him requesting that he move his corporate banking business to the second defendant, a Bank. Following discussions, the claimant agreed to do so and considerable funds  were placed with The Bank. The claimant’s case is that he agreed to do so only after the second defendant agreed that he would undertake personal responsibility for all monies that the companies placed with The Bank. The claimant alleges that it was expressly agreed by the claimant and second defendant that this oral agreement was governed by English law.

There was more tro and fro however I focus here on the jurisdictional challenge. With reference to Article 4 BIa and the most recent authority of Vedanta, the judge holds that in principle the defendant with EU domicile has a right to refuse to be sued other than in his place of domicile. However that defendant acknowledged service, indicating an intention to defend the claim but not to contest jurisdiction. This leads the judge to conclude, after some discussion, that there is A26 BIa submission (aka voluntary appearance).

Next follows an important discussion on the circumstances in which a defendant who voluntarily submits, may serve as an anchor defendant under the English residual rules.  It would certainly not be possible under Brussels Ia. The relevant rule in the practice directions (this is ‘Gateway 3’) reads

“3.1 The claimant may serve a claim form out of the jurisdiction with the permission of the court under rule 6.36 where –… 3) A claim is made against a person (‘the defendant’) on whom the claim form has been or will be served (otherwise than in reliance on this paragraph) and  – a) there is between the claimant and the defendant a real issue which it is reasonable for the court to try; and b) the claimant wishes to serve the claim form on another person who is a necessary or proper party to that claim.

Second defendant argues claimant is not entitled to rely on Gateway 3 because the first defendant is not a defendant who is to be treated as being a person on whom the claim form has been or will be served because the court has jurisdiction over the first defendant only because he has voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the English Court. The overall nature of the discussions on this issue essentially discuss the need to avoid abuse. Of note in this respect is the judge finding [41] that there is ‘no evidence that suggests that there was any agreement reached between the claimant and the first defendant by which the first defendant agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of the court prior to the issue of the Claim Form in these proceedings or for that matter afterwards.’

Nevertheless the judge holds that the current authorities in particular the Court of Appeal in the Benarty [1983] 1 Lloyds Rep 361, continue to not permit a claimant to rely on an anchor defendant who has voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction when he could not otherwise have been served in accordance with the CPR. Obiter he holds that while there is a real issue to be tried against the second defendant, the contract gateway for jurisdiction (which would require English law to be the lex contractus) is not engaged. No clearly demonstrated will exists for English law to be lex voluntatis per Rome I [76] and [80]

There is no plausible evidential basis to submit that that the governing law identified by either Article 4(2), 4(3), or 4(4) [of Rome 1] would be English law. The Tripartite Agreement was, if made: (a) agreed between three Ukrainians who reside (or resided) in Ukraine and/or [The EU Member State]; (b) agreed in, variously, [The EU Member State], Ukraine, and France; (c) premised on a further agreement said to have been agreed in Ukraine, between two Ukrainians, in respect of deposits made by Ukrainians into a Ukrainian bank; (d) to be performed outside England. No party has provided any evidence of any connection between themselves, or the Tripartite Agreement, and England”

Neither does the tort gateway help [83]:

There is no evidence that at any stage any of the contact that took place leading to what the claimant contends to be the inducement of a breach by the first defendant of the Tripartite Agreement took place otherwise than in either Ukraine or The EU Member State.

At [86] ff England is, equally obiter, held to be forum non conveniens.

Lack of jurisdiction against the second defendant is confirmed. One imagines there might be ground of appeal given the change to the practice directions’ formulation after the Benarty and the need to clear up this principled issue.

Geert.

Posted on

Benkel v East-West German Real Estate Holding. Potential future proceedings should not frustrate anchor jurisdiction.

In Benkel v East-West German Real Estate Holding & Anor [2021] EWHC 188 (Ch), Morgan J was asked to join a party on the basis of Article 8(1) Brussels Ia’s anchor defendant mechanism, and obliged. Mr Dikautschitsch (domiciled in either Spain or Germany) is to be one of a number of defendants. One of the existing defendants, East-West UK, is domiciled in England and Wales.

Casio Computer Co Ltd v Sayo & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 661 was the authority mostly relied on, as was, via the link with Article 30, Sarrio SA v Kuwait Investment Authority. Expediency to add the second defendant to the proceedings was found to be present given the possibility of conflicting findings of fact [59]. Morgan J rejected [64] a rather novel argument that given the possibility of the E&W courts’ findings of fact clashing with potential future proceedings elsewhere, he should refrain from exercising his discretion to consolidate.

Geert.

European Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, Heading 2.2.13.1.