Tag: Fraus omnia corrumpit

Posted on

Project Lietzenburger. Following the Court of Appeal’s hint in AGPS Bondco, an extensive discussion of move of COMI and ordre public recognition of an English restructuring Plan.

Project Lietzenburger Strabe Holdco, Re [2024] EWHC 468 (Ch) would seem to heed my prediction when I reviewed AGPS BondCo (“Strategic Value Capital Solutions Master Fund LP & Ors v AGPS BondCo PLC (Re AGPS BondCo PLC) [2024] EWCA Civ 24) here: that the English jurisdictional basis for schemes of arrangement and restructuring plans for corporations without English anchor prior to the restructuring, is less certain than court practice suggested.

Prior to AGPS Bondco and as I report in many posts which readers can find using the ‘scheme of arrangement’, in the event of a non-E&W incorporated debtor whose debt was being restructured, the classic technique is to insert a newly incorporated English company as a substitute obligor or co-obligor of debt owed by a foreign company in order to engage the jurisdiction of the English court. That technique in itself has not changed, but the court’s fairly ready acceptance of jurisdiction arguendo is now coming under some pressure.

As I reported in the past, the arguendo technique’s smooth riding through the courts first if all was assisted by the general absence of challenge by creditors. Even those not entirely convinced of the economic soundness of the restructuring at issue would eventually give up opposition when push came to shove. Further, pre-Brexit the assumption that a scheme or a plan would be readily recognised across the EU as a ‘judgment’ under Brussels Ia, despite question marks over the soundness of that ia viz the definition of ‘judgment’ and the application of BIa’s ‘insolvency’ exception, similarly lubricated passage through the courts. Post Brexit and absent UK Lugano membership, things have not necessarily changed from the content point of view; however they have certainly changed from the perception point of view.

In the case at issue, Richards J refers to AGPS Bondco and discusses COMI shift of the Plan corporation at length [69] ff.

The plan company having its COMI in E&W is one of the jurisdictional routes available. The Insolvency (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 are the main port of call, and Re Swissport Holding International SARL [2020] EWHC 3556 (Ch) (unreported), which I flagged  in my discussion of Barings v Galapagos here is the lead judgment referred to on the principles of COMI. One of the issues in Barings is the question of ‘permanency’ of COMI move, an urgent issue in Barings but perhaps less immediately concerning in current case (the judge does briefly address it [85]).

The judge having decided that COMI was indeed located in E&W then [86] ff discussed whether this move of COMI might have been in breach of Luxembourg law. The structure of this analysis is not entirely clear. Whether COMI moved in breach of applicable lex societatis is not in itself I would suggest relevant to the COMI move itself and indeed this is not how the judge seems to approach it. One assumes his analysis on this point is part of his consideration of whether the courts at Luxembourg would recognise the Plan, alongside [103] ff where the potential of exclusive Luxembourg jurisdiction is considered. Consideration including by the experts is made of CJEU C-723/20 Galapagos BidCo Sarl, with the judge eventually by a slender margin deciding that the view is to be preferred that Lux courts would not consider themselves to have such jurisdiction.

On recognition proper (again I am not quite sure of the structure here). [112] ff consider the Re DTEK Energy BV test, with consideration in particular of the COMI move as fraude à la loi /fraus (additionally in the form of fraude au jugement) and on balance the judge holds that it is unlikely that the LUX courts would object on ordre public grounds (ia given EU law’s acceptance of COMI move for restructuring purposes.

The same ordre public test under German law with an important Brexit consequence [125]: “Both experts agree that an English judgment sanctioning the Plan would be recognised in Germany only if the Plan Company’s COMI is in England at the time of any order sanctioning the Plan. Without that, the German courts would not accept that the English courts have jurisdiction for the purposes of s343 of the InsO.” I am not an expert on German law but it seems prima facie implicit in that opinion that a Plan would have to be considered an insolvency and indeed [125] ff follows that discussion. Here the judgment takes an interesting turn with [130] the presence of cross-class cram-down in an English Plan leading to pro inspiratio an Annex A EU Insolvency Regulation notified German procedure, StaRUG, in implementation of EU Directive 2019/1023 on Preventive Restructurings (the “Restructuring Directive”), the Plan being considered one in insolvency.

Consider the competing reasons:

Professor Thole’s reasons for concluding that the Plan would be recognised and given effect to in Germany can be summarised as follows:

i) The Plan is similar in nature to a StaRUG. StaRUGs fall within the list of “insolvency proceedings” set out in Annex A.

ii) Proceedings set out in Annex A are “insolvency proceedings” for the purposes of the InsO. In official commentaries on German domestic legislation, the German legislature has stated that, in deciding whether non-EU proceedings constitute “insolvency proceedings”, it is helpful to consider their similarities with proceedings listed in Annex A.

iii) Since the Plan is similar to a StaRUG, which falls within Annex A, a German court would likely conclude that an order sanctioning the Plan would be an order in “insolvency proceedings” for the purposes of the InsO.

iv) That conclusion is not altered by the accepted fact that the Plan does not deal with all the Plan Company’s creditors (such as professional advisers). The requirement for “collective proceedings” is present by virtue of the fact that the Plan deals with the rights of the Plan Company’s financial creditors. That conclusion is supported by a comparison with StaRUGs which likewise do not need to deal with the claims of all creditors.

v) Accordingly, the Plan would be enforced and recognised under the terms of the InsO.

      1. Professor Skauradszun’s reasons for reaching a contrary conclusion can be summarised as follows:

i) German legal literature categorises plans under Part 26A as “preventive restructuring frameworks” which are the province of the StaRUG Act rather than the InsO. Accordingly, a German court would consider that the question whether the Plan should be recognised and enforced in Germany should be answered by reference to the StaRUG Act, rather than by reference to the InsO.

ii) The StaRUG Act does not provide for preventive restructuring frameworks of a non-EU member state to be recognised or enforced in Germany. There is, therefore a “gap” in German domestic legislation which means that non-EU “preventive restructuring frameworks” are inherently incapable of being recognised in Germany. Since Germany has a civil law tradition, the courts would not seek to fill that gap by adopting a strained interpretation of the concept of “insolvency proceedings” so as to enable the Plan to be recognised under the InsO. Rather, a German court would look to the legislature to fill the gap if it saw fit.

iii) The Plan falls outside the definition of “insolvency proceedings” in the InsO applying orthodox principles of interpretation which are not affected by any wish to fill a perceived gap in the legislation. That is because the Plan lacks the requisite element of “collectivity” to satisfy the definition.

iv) The fact that the Plan is similar to procedures (such as a StaRUG) listed in Annex A is not relevant. While German legislation does indeed take into account similarities with EU insolvency proceedings, the InsO only requires a comparison to be made with proceedings listed in the EU Insolvency Regulation prior to it being recast in 2015. The German court would not apply an “always speaking” doctrine of statutory interpretation to “update” those references to include Annex A of the Insolvency Regulation Recast.

 These are interesting positions and in the end the judge sides by a very narrow margin with the former. 

Further consideration of the plan then lead to the judge suggesting a number of amendments but for the purposes of the blog, the findings on jurisdiction and recognition are as extensive as they are exciting.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 4th ed. 2024, 5.35 ff.

Posted on

SKAT: The Supreme Court agrees with the Court of Appeal on the ‘revenue’ and ‘foreign sovereign authority’ limitations to jurisdiction.

The UK Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal in Skatteforvaltningen (the Danish Customs and Tax Administration) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2023] UKSC 40, confirming the Court of Appeal’s finding that the claim against the majority of the defendants may go ahead.

I reviewed the first instance judgment here and the Court of Appeal’s here and I shall not repeat all the issues. Readers should note that the issues discussed are of wider relevance to current developments in both public and private international law (business and human rights litigation, climate change litigation etc.).

[21] Lord Lloyd-Jones summarises the Dicey rules at play (and also notes the editors of the 16th d and those before them pointing out the inroads that in recent years have been made into the principle) and [22] he makes a delightfully concise reference to somewhat different US views on the rationale for the issue.

[39] after reviewing the authorities, it is held that

The Danish tax system undoubtedly provided the context and the opportunity for the alleged fraud and the operation of the fraud can be understood only by an examination of that system. It may well be that at the trial of this action it will be necessary to address that in detail. However, as we have seen [that’s a reference to Dicey as summarised above, GAVC], there is no objection to the recognition of foreign tax laws in that way. Because the present proceedings do not involve an unsatisfied claim to pay taxes due in Denmark, they fall outside the scope of the revenue rule.

[41] applies fraus and nemo auditur in dismissing appellants’ attempt to present themselves as taxpayers

The appellants seek to circumvent this difficulty by nevertheless portraying the refund applicants as taxpayers. It is said that by making applications for withholding tax refund applications the applicants brought themselves within the Danish tax system and became Danish taxpayers. It is also said that the respondent by paying “refunds” accepted them into the Danish tax system. It is further said that in rescinding the “refunds” the respondent was acting in the capacity of a taxing authority. The appellants therefore maintain that, in all the circumstances, the recipients of “refunds” and the respondent were in the relationship of taxpayer and taxing authority. As the Court of Appeal pointed out (at para 136) this submission is misconceived. The applications for “refunds” were all based on the lie that the applicants had paid tax in the first place which, on the respondent’s pleaded case, they had not. This attempt to portray the applicants as taxpayers cannot bind the respondent as the victim of their fraud and the applicants cannot take advantage of their own wrongdoing in order to bring themselves within the revenue rule.

[44] ff discusses the impact of (commentary on) CJEU C-49/12 Sunico, which was also discussed by the  first instance judge in current case and by Szpunar AG and the CJEU in Movic.

[53] ff then discusses the sovereign authority rule, essentially considering whether the claim is a simple money claim like thirteen to the dozen, and with reference (via Dr Mann) to Grotius’ ‘actus qui a rege sed ut a quovis alio fiant’.

[58] again substance is distinguished from context

appellants are undoubtedly able to point to prior exercises of sovereign power by Denmark in creating its laws relating to the taxation of dividends and in operating the tax system. This, however, merely provides the context for the present claims. The substance of the claims, as we have seen, does not involve any act of a sovereign character, any exercise or enforcement of a sovereign right, or any vindication of sovereign power. On the contrary, the respondent is simply bringing restitutionary claims to recover monies of which it has been defrauded, a course open to any private citizen who had been similarly defrauded.

Unlike in first instance, neither Lugano nor Brussels Ia feature substantially at the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court. That is a pity for how the Dicey rules and similar ones in the current EU Member States relate to Lugano and Brussels, is not clear-cut.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, para 2.28 ff. (4th edition forthcoming January 2024).

Posted on

Stichting Claim Gran Petro. Dutch court holds that use of the anchor mechanism merely to avoid tardy Brasilian proceedings in follow-on damages claim, constitutes abuse of process.

Regular readers will be aware that disciplining the use of the anchor defendant mechanism is not an easy task for a court to undertake (I have linked to one post yet the search tag ‘anchor’ will take you to plenty). The CJEU takes a restrictive view. Although in the case at issue Article 8(1) Brussels Ia does not formally apply (the mechanism does not apply to defendants domiciled outside the EU), instruction in Dutch residual rules is that they be applied as A8(1) would.

In Stichting Claim Gran Petro v Shell Netherlands, Shell Brasil and Raizen ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2023:7099, the Hague court of first instance did though refuse jurisdiction against the one Brazilian defendant (Raisen), anchored unto two Dutch Shell entities (Shell now having moved domicile exclusively to England was held [5.2] not to have relevance on account of the perpetuatio fori principle), citing abuse of the anchor defendant mechanism.

Shell have a majority share in Raisen. The claimants in essence called upon the corporate structure of Shell and, pro inspiratio, hoped to convince the court that the presumption of involvement of mother corporations in their daughter’s anti-competitive shenanigans might be enough to justify the relatedness of the claims. Such assumption exists in EU competition law (see eg CJEU ENI) however the court finds that claimants have not been able to prove a Brazilian equivalent.

The court refers ia to CJEU CDC v Azo Nobel et al to emphasize the condition that the anchor mechanism must not be intended merely to remove the defendant at issue from its natural domicile forum. [6.7] the court reports that the claimants acknowledge that Dutch jurisdiction is sought for reasons of  general tardiness of Brazilian proceedings. There is no suggestion that Raizen will not be willing to meet any future damages. Seeing as no presumption under Brazilian law of mother corporation involvement exists, and seeing as no proof of factual involvement of the Shell mother entities was furnished, [6.16] the court concludes that the anchor mechanism at issue is an abusive application and must not lead to jurisdiction.

Geert.

Posted on

Poland v LC CORP BV. A second refusal for ISDS Achmea /Komstroy anti-suit, following Spain v Blasket Renewable Investments LLC and adding to the ECT fog.

In Poland v LC Corp BV, the Amsterdam first instance court mid-March refused Poland’s application for an anti-suit injunction, which would have prohibited LC Corp from seeking UNCITRAL arbitration under the now defunct Poland-Netherlands BIT, with London as curial seat.

The case echoes that of Kingdom of Spain v Blasket Renewable Investments LLC, in which the Amsterdam Court had earlier declined to hear an anti-suit injunction petition by Spain to prevent renewable investors from enforcing arbitral awards in the US: see Josep Galvez’s summary here. That case however in the meantime has encountered quite the opposite reaction from a US judge, who held end of March that Spain enjoys sovereign immunity in the case and that as a result of the CJEU’s Komstroy’s authority, neither Spain nor the defendant had power to sign up to arbitration, hence dismissing the petition to confirm an arbitral award rendered pursuant to the Energy Charter Treaty.  In turn, that decision is in contrast with earlier orders in 9REN v the Kingdom of Spain and NextEra v the Kingdom of Spain as Curtis summarise here. The Court of Appeal will now hear those issues.

The case, as Geraldo Vidigal reminded me, is also reminiscent of the interlocutory decision in ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2022:5772, also involving Poland yet in that case with an anonymised Dutch corporate defendant. In that judgment the arbitration procedure was suggested as the currently only available way for the corporation to have its day in ‘court’, seeing as in the view of the judge, the Polish rule of law crisis  questions the impartiality of the Polish courts, and the EU’s alternative Investment Court is not yet operational. Johannes Hendrik Fahner discusses that case here.

In current case, the court first of all holds that Brussels Ia’s arbitration exception is not engaged, for the case’s core, it suggests, is whether the pursuit of an arbitration proceeding despite CJEU Achmea, constitutes abuse of process. The case, it holds (4.3) does not have the questions  put to the arbitral tribunal as its object, hence the arbitration exception is not in play.
4.5 the Court re applicable law holds parties have made choice of law for Dutch law under Article 14 Rome II, obiter suggesting that finding locus damni under Rome II Article 4(1)’s general rule is not self-evident: would the damage of an abusive pursuit of arbitration proceedings, be located in The Netherlands? It is not entirely clear to me why the Court discusses applicable law (other than Dutch courts having to do so proprio motu.
4.12 the court refers to the tribunal’s Kompetenz Kompetenz. The curial seat being located outside the EU, in London, is a crucial element in the court’s reasoning, despite CJEU Achmea: it is not prima facie clear that the tribunal will refuse to hear the case. Given the overall fog re the consequences of the CJEU case-law on extra-EU arbitration, the issues are not clearly without foundation hence cannot constitute abuse.

 

With recent Australian developments (blogpost imminent), even more proverbial ECT s**** is hitting the fan. IMHO this conundrum is not going to be solved by ever more procedural forum shopping with conflicting outcomes.

Geert.

Posted on

Soriano v Forensic News. Court of Appeal confirms high bar to disciplining discovery forum shopping.

Soriano v Forensic News LLC & Ors [2023] EWCA Civ 223 deals with the discipline an English court should hand out to defendants trying to use foreign proceedings and their discovery rules, to assist them in the defence of a claim (here a libel claim) in England and Wales. (Defendants’ attempt at dismissing jurisdiction had earlier failed).

In a joint and fairly succinct opinion, Voss MR, Carr LJ and Warby LJ dismiss the contention that the defendants should be served with an anti-suit injunction (also refused at first instance by Murray J a mere 20 days back; this was a most swift appeal) to restrain them from continuing US proceedings. These had been initiated in the District Court for the Southern District of New York (the DCSDNY) on 6 December 2022. Defendants seek an order there requiring HSBC USA to produce two very broad categories of banking documents relating to Mr Soriano’s companies. Defendants here, claimants in the US, rely in 28 USC §1782 (a so-called 1782 application) allowing a US court to provide assistance to an applicant in gathering evidence in support of legal proceedings in a foreign court. It provides that: “[t]he district court … may order [a person] to … produce a document or other thing for use in a proceeding in a foreign … tribunal”, and “[t]he order may be made … upon the application of any interested person”.

The Court of Appeal relied like the judge on the grounds per South Carolina Insurance Co v. Assurantie Maatschappij “De Zeven Provincien” NV [1987] 1 AC 24 to find that defendants were not guilty  of “conduct which [was] oppressive or vexatious or which [interfered] with the due process of the court” in seeking the US order.

In essence, the Court supports the lawful exercise of evidence gathering and does not easily decide that use of foreign proceeding for same be considered oppressive.

Geert.

Posted on

Maceió victims v Braskem. Rotterdam court refuses application for Article 34 lis pendens stay.

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.

The (first instance) court at Rotterdam has upheld anchor jurisdiction and refused an application for an Article 34 Brussels Ia stay. The case concerns victims of earthquakes in the Brasilian Maceió region, which they argue are caused by the mining activities of Braskem. The judgment is only available in Dutch.

The Dutch anchor defendants are intra-group suppliers of ia specialty chemicals, and finance. The main target of the claim of course is the Brasilian mother holding. Whether the latter can be brought into the proceedings is not subject to Brussels Ia but rather to Dutch residual rules. However just as in e.g. Shell, the Dutch rules are applied with CJEU authority on Article 8(1) Brussels Ia firmly in mind. In much more succinct terms than the English courts in similar proceedings, the Dutch courts [6.16] finds the cases so ‘closely related’ that it is expedient to hear the cases together. It emphasises that while the respective roles and liabilities of the various undertakings concerned is likely to be very different, there is a bundle of legal and factual questions that runs jointly throughout the various claims. [6.18] it emphasises that the decision to base the European headquarters of the group, and the finance activities at Rotterdam, implies that the concern reasonably could have foreseen it would be sued here.

Equally succinctly [6.19 ff] the Court rejects the argument that the use of the Dutch corporations as anchor defendants is an abuse of process. Such abuse must be narrowly construed and  it is far from obvious that the claim against the anchors is entirely without merit.

Seemingly defendants tried to argue forum non conveniens however [6.23] the court points out such construction does not exist in The Netherlands and obiter it adds (like the Court of Appeal in Municipio) that practical complications in either hearing of the case or enforcement of any judgment are not a reason to dismiss jurisdiction.

Request for a stay in the procedures viz the Brasilian corporations [6.26] is rejected on (Dutch CPR) lis pendens rules for the parties in the proceedings are not the same. Article 34 is dealt with in two paras (quite a contrast with the E&W courts). The pending procedures vis-a-vis Article 34 are not, it seems, Brasilian Civil Public Actions – CPAS (these were at issue in Municipio de Mariana (of some interest is that the law firm behind the claims is the same in both cases)). Rather, pending liquidation proceedings are considered as the relevant assessment points. [6.28] obiter the court finds that the cases are most probably not related. It grounds  its decision however on a stay not being in the interest of the sound administration of justice. The court holds that the Brasilian proceedings are not likely to be concluded within a reasonable time. Defendants’ commitment at hearing to speed up the process in Brasil, are met with disbelief by the court given the defendants’ attitude in the Brasilian procedures hitherto.

[6.32] permission to appeal the interim judgment on jurisdiction is denied. This means that, like in Airbus, discussion on the private international law issues is likely only to resurface at the stage of appealing the judgment on the merits, too.

An important judgment: other than Petrobas, there are to my knowledge no continental judgments discussing Article 34 in this intensity (there are E&W judgments, as readers of the blog will know).

Geert.

See also ‘Dude, where’s my EU court? On the application of Articles 33-34 Brussels Ia’s forum non conveniens- light rules’, Journal of Private International Law, forthcoming 2022.

Posted on

Nagel v PDC. Permission for service out withdrawn on forum non and disclosure issues.

W Nagel (a firm) v Pluczenik& Ors [2022] EWHC 1714 (Comm) concerns litigation in the diamond sector. It is an appeal against permission for service out which triggers various jurisdictional considerations, including forum non, as well as disclosure and ‘clean hands’ concerns.

The judgment is a good illustration of claim and counterclaim serving jurisdictional purposes.

Defendants are a Belgium-domiciled diamond manufacturer (PDC) and its equally Belgium-based managing director Mr Pluczenik . Claimant Nagel is a UK based diamond broker. Nagel is defendant in Belgian proceedings brought in May 2015 by defendants in the E&W proceedings, who used a Belgian-based anchor defendant to sue the English claimant in Belgium (A8(1) Brussels Ia); Nagel are also defendant in a September 2015 Belgian claim brought by the same claimants and since consolidated by the Belgian courts. Nagel itself issued a claim against PDC in the English High Court in March 2015, did not serve it, but sent a letter before action which indicated that it intended to bring proceedings in England.

In June 2015, as direct reaction to the Belgian Claim, Nagel amended the English Claim to seek negative declaratory relief to the effect that it was not liable in respect of a number of contractual duties.

In July 2017 Popplewell J found for Nagel, including in respect of the negative declaratory relief: W Nagel (A Firm) v Pluczenik Diamond Company NV [2017] EWHC 1750 (Comm). His judgment was confirmed by the Court of Appeal: [2018] EWCA Civ 2640, payments were made and the E&W proceedings ended.

Come forward third defendant in the current E&W proceedings, Ms Shine, who was the CEO of a subsidiary of De Beers – De Beers Trading Company. She has never worked for either of the Claimant or the First or Second Defendants, but she gave a statement to the Belgian court in 2017, supporting PDC. Her statement was provoked it seems by the outcome of the E&W proceedings which did not match her recollection. Nagel originally objected to jurisdiction solely on the ground of lis pendens (A29-30 BIa).

In July 2020 (one can see that in this case the speed of Belgian proceedings is nothing like in the case I reported yesterday) the Belgian claimants put forward their arguments on jurisdiction based on Antwerp being forum contractus per A7(1) BIA (they argued centre of gravity or characteristic performance was in Antwerp) [20].

In an interim, February 2021 interim judgment the Belgian court held it had jurisdiction on the basis of A7 forum contractus. It considered the lis pendens issue noting that it could no longer apply now that the English Claim was concluded. It then concluded that it had jurisdiction to determine the dispute. The Court noted that “the defendants apparently do not (or no longer) dispute” that the services were performed in Antwerp. 

Nagel then dropped the jurisdictional arguments and at hearings 7 May 2021 onwards went for res judicata, arguing …the English judgment has the status of res judicata with regard to the present proceedings, so that the court on the basis of Article 23 and 25 Judicial Code [the Belgian CPR, GAVC] is currently prohibited from again deciding on the claim…” [30]. End of May 2021 Nagel then commenced the present claim in the Commercial Court. The claim alleges that the Belgian Claim constitutes a tortious abuse of process and forms part of an unlawful means conspiracy between the Defendants. Ms Shine is the Third Defendant. It is said that the provision of the Shine Statement and its (lack of) merits justify an inference that she was involved in the abuse of process and the conspiracy [31].

In September 2021 Moulder J gave permission for service out (required post Brexit) on the basis that the claim met limb (a) of the tort gateway viz “damage was sustained, or will be sustained, within the jurisdiction” (Nagel trades from England, paid sums to Belgian lawyers from a bank account in England and has consequently suffered loss here; she also UKSC Brownlie for the damage gateway). She refused permission on two other gateways – necessary and proper party and tort committed within the jurisdiction. It is alleged by defendants that Moulder J was not given any indication of the Belgian interim judgment.

The Belgian Claim is now scheduled for trial in January 2023.

[64] Cockerill J holds that the Belgian findings on jurisdiction and the existence of a judgment which dealt in terms with jurisdiction should on any view have been put before Moulder J and [65] that this breach of duty of disclosure was deliberate. She also holds [70] that the picture sketched of the Belgian proceedings being ‘in limbo’ was plainly wrong: they were definitely active, and that it had been wrongfully suggested that the Belgian judge was not going to deal with the res judicata issue. On that basis, she would have set aside permission for service out [75] however this point turns out to be obiter for the reason for reversal of the order is that E&W are not the appropriate forum [76] ff. Relevant factors being that (i) the jurisdiction of the Belgian Courts appears to have been established by PDC and accepted by Nagel (at least on a prima facie basis), (ii) the Belgian claim is progressing and (iii) there is scope for determination of a res judicata issue (which replicates the issues sought to be brought here) and (iv) a determination of the res judicata issue is (and was) likely to be determined relatively soon.

Moreover, Belgium clearly is an appropriate forum [79] the Belgian Claim is one brought by a Belgian company (PDC), arising out of services provided in Belgium (as the Belgian Court has held), alleging fraud on the Belgian Court. (The serious issue to be tried discussion leads to an analysis of Article 4 Rome II as retained EU law).

A good illustration as I mentioned of claim, counterclaim, and of course the clean hands principle.

Geert.

Posted on

Skat v Solo Capital Partners. When faced with Dicey rule 3, I’ll see your tax claim and raise it to a fraud one.

Update 17 April 2023 there is an echo of the issues in SKAT in the judgment in The Bangkok of Commerce Public Company Ltd, The Official Receiver of v Saxena & Ors [2023] EWHC 521 (Comm): Moulder J holding that a Thai judgment is enforceable in E&W despite the Thai Advocate-General holding that the order, as matter of Thai law, is criminal in nature: English courts generally do not enforce a foreign penal order: Dicey Rule 20. Claimant’s case is that the exclusionary rule is engaged where the claim amounts to an attempt by a foreign state to exercise its sovereign authority in England but that this case is a claim to enforce in substance a claim for damages which in England might have been brought in a civil case. The judge holds ia ([67]) that whether the exclusionary rule is engaged in a question for the English court to determine and that the English court is not bound by the characterisation applied by the foreign jurisdiction.

Update 24 03 2023 Appeal by the Sanjay Shah Defendants will be heard by the UKSC in July 2023. Against other defendants, meanwhile, a trial of preliminary issues defined to determine foundational aspects of SKAT’s allegations that the tax refund claims it says it should not have paid were not valid claims under Danish tax law, was held in March 2023:  Skatteforvaltningen v Solo Capital Partners LLP [2023] EWHC 590 (Comm).

I reviewed the first instance judgment in Skat v Solo Capital Partners here and concluded that it endangered the effet utile of Brussels Ia (and Lugano). Justice Baker had concluded that all SKAT’s claims were inadmissible as a consequence of Dicey Rule 3. The Court of Appeal has now largely reversed, [Skatteforvaltningen v Solo Capital Partners Llp [2022] EWCA Civ 234] thereby resurrecting a £1,4 billion claim.

SKAT (Danish customs and excise) seeks the return of amounts it says it was wrongly induced to pay out as tax refunds. SKAT is not seeking to recover due and unpaid dividend tax or indeed any tax, because the foundation of its argument is that in the case of the alleged fraud defendants there was no liability to pay tax, no shares, no dividends, no tax and no withholding tax. There was never a taxpayer/tax authority relationship between the Solo etc Applicants or the alleged fraud defendants and SKAT. The mere fact that the alleged fraud is committed in the context of taxation or against a foreign tax authority is insufficient to bring the matter within the rule [SKAT’s counsel arguments, [30]-[31]). To allow the defendants to escape their liability, not in a tax fraud but in a general conspiracy, would also run counter the fraus omnia corrumpit principle [ditto, 62], a point which Flaux C agrees with obiter [146] in a case of a major international fraud..

Flaux C is much less verbose than the submissions before him. Yet again a jurisdictional point was allowed to be litigated to great length – albeit one may appreciate counsel and clients’ energy on those issues given the value of the claim.

[127] the basis of the claim is fraudulent misrepresentation. It is not a claim to unpaid tax or a claim to recover tax at all. It is a claim to recover monies which had been abstracted from SKAT’s general funds by fraud [128]. Even though SKAT may be an emanation of the Danish state, the Dicey revenue rule does not apply [128], neither does the wider sovereign powers rule within Dicey Rule 3:

‘In bringing a claim to recover the monies of which it was defrauded, SKAT is not doing an act of a sovereign character or enforcing a sovereign right, nor is it seeking to vindicate a sovereign power. Rather it is making a claim as the victim of fraud for the restitution of monies of which it has been defrauded, in the same way as if it were a private citizen.’ [129]

This latter reasoning falls short I find of proper criteria to guide its future application, although more is said at [130]: the claim to recover the money is at the core of the Chancellor’s reasoning here and that claim is a straightforward money claim, and [133] ‘the claims are ones which could just as well be brought by a private citizen’. That is the kind of argument which echoes CJEU authority on civil and commercial and to my mind the Court of Appeal could have helped us all by pointing out more specifically to what degree Dicey Rule 3 be informed by CJEU authority on ‘civil and commercial’, regardless of Brexit.

That there would be a detailed examination of the Danish tax regime and possible criticism of it and of SKAT’s systems and control, does not somehow convert the claim into one to enforce that tax regime. Recognition of foreign revenue laws is permissible under Dicey Rule 3 [138].

The position of one of the defendants, ED&F Man, is different in the sense that there is no allegation that they were implicated in a fraud. Although it is alleged that misrepresentations were made by them, the misrepresentations are said to have been negligent.

SKAT has to accept that as against those defendants the claim is inadmissible by virtue of Dicey Rule 3 unless it can satisfy the Court: (i) that the claim is a “civil and commercial matter” not a “revenue matter” for the purposes of Article 1(1) of the Brussels Recast Regulation; and (ii) that the operation of Dicey Rule 3 is precluded because, contrary to the judge’s analysis, it would impair the effectiveness of the Brussels Recast Regulation.

Contrary to the conclusion the judge reached the Court of Appeal finds that the claim against ED&F Man is a “revenue matter” falling outside the Brussels Recast Regulation. Here the Court of Appeals applies parity of reasoning with its assessment of the other claims: [150]:

Whilst the test for the application of Dicey Rule 3 may not be identical to that for determining what is a “revenue etc matter” for Article 1(1) of the Brussels Recast Regulation, it can be seen that its application leads to the same answer. If Dicey Rule 3 applies (as SKAT has to accept it does in relation to the claim against ED&F Man) then by the same reasoning, the basis for the claim by SKAT against those defendants is either a right which arises from an exercise of public powers or a legal relationship characterised by an exercise of public powers, from which it necessarily follows that the claim is a revenue matter outside the Brussels Recast Regulation.

Unfortunately therefore the effet utile argument (that application of Dicey rule 3 impairs the effectiveness of BIa /Lugano, as I had argued in my earlier post) is not discussed [153].

The title of this piece of course hints at the relevance of claim formulation. It is also exaggerated: SKAT cannot conjure up fraud elements out of nowhere to reinvent a tax claim as one in mere tortious and fraudulent misrepresentation. However it is clear that in cases that are somewhat murky, claim formulation will be crucial to navigate Dicey Rule 3.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, para 2.28 ff.

Posted on

Jamieson v Wurttemburgische Versicherung. On being seized for lis alibi pendens purposes, and on whether the protected categories regimes ought to gazump torpedo actions.

Jamieson v Wurttemburgische Versicherung AG & Anor [2021] EWHC 178 (QB) has been in my draft folder for a while – Master Davison refused an application to lift a stay on the basis of A29 Brussels I’a’s lis alibi pendens rule, holding that the issue of which court was being seized first, was properly sub judice in the German courts, as is the issue whether litigation subject to the protected categories, should rule out a stay in cases where the weaker party is being disadvantaged.

James Beeton has the background to the case here. Claimant was injured in a road traffic accident in Munich. He was working as a commodities broker for the second defendant. He was attending the Oktoberfest with clients, whom he was entertaining. He was walking from the beer hall to his hotel. He crossed a busy highway and was struck by a taxi, sustaining very severe injuries. The precise circumstances of the collision are in dispute. The taxi was insured by the first defendant, against whom the claimant has a direct right of action.

I tell students and pupils alike that too strong a hint of judicial action in pre-litigation action may trigger a torpedo suit in a court not preferred by client. That is exactly what happened in this case. In pre-action correspondence the insurers for the taxi were asked to confirm that they would not issue proceedings in another jurisdiction – to which they never replied other than by issuing proceedings in Germany for a negative declaration, i.e. a declaration that they were not liable for the accident. Those proceedings had been issued on 18 July 2017. Claimants then issued protectively in England on 10 May 2018. The to and fro in the German proceedings revealed that the correct address for the English claimant was not properly given to the German courts until after the English courts had been seized. 

Hence two substantive issues are before the German courts: when were they properly seized (a discussion in which the English courts could formally interfere using A29(2) BIa); and if they were seized first, is A29 subordinate to the protected categories’ regime: for if the German torpedo goes ahead, claimant in the English proceedings will be bereft of his right to sue in England.

The suggestion for the second issue is that either in Brussels Ia, a rule needs to be found to this effect (I do not think it is there); or in an abuse of EU law (per ia Lord Briggs in Vedanta) argument (CJEU authority on and enthusiasm for same is lukewarm at best).  Despite Master Davison clear disapproval of the insurer’s actions at what seems to be an ethical level, he rules out a lifting of the earlier stay on the basis of comity and of course CJEU C-159/02 Turner v Grovit: the English High Court must not remove a claim from the jurisdiction of the German courts on the basis of abuse of EU law before those courts.

A most interesting case on which we may yet see referral to the CJEU – by the German courts perhaps.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed 2021, Heading 2.2.9.4, 2.2.15.1.

Posted on

The CJEU in Wikingerhof on distinguishing tort from contract between contracting parties. No Valhalla for those seeking further clarification of Brogsitter, let alone De Bloos.

Update 25 November 10:38 AM:  Readers  may want to refer to the discussion posted to Tobias Lutzi’s view on the case, which I will not copy /paste here save for my initial reply: ‘I believe Tobias’ biggest take-away from the judgment is the Court’s emphasis on ‘indispensability’ of contractual interpretation for A(7)1 to be triggered (he will correct me if I am wrong).
As I argue in my review of the judgment, I think that’s a change of emphasis viz Brogsitter and e.g. Apple v eBizcuss rather than a change in nature of the CJEU approach.
However assuming one applies the authority that courts must not dwell too long on merits in assessing jurisdictional gateways, it does follow that A7(1) will only be engaged in those cases where the contract prima facie is overwhelmingly needed to solve the underlying dispute. This still leaves room for manoeuvre for the creative claimant (see also the AG’s points on forum shopping), but not as much as might have been expected prior to this judgment.’

 

The CJEU held yesterday (Tuesday) in C-59/19 Wikingerhof v Booking.com. I reviewed the AG’s Opinion here and the Court follows the AG’s minimalist interpretation. The case was held in Grand Chamber, which might have provoked expectations yet the judgment is not exactly a bang. Neither however can it be described a whimper. As I note in my review of the Opinion, the case in my view could have been held acte clair. The AG did take the opportunity in his Opinion to discuss many issues which the CJEU was bound not to entertain, at least not in as much detail as the AG did.

Let me first signal what I believe might be the biggest take-away of the litigation, if at least the referring court is followed. That is the Bundesgerichtshof’s finding that  there is no durable record of the alleged consent by Wikingerhof of the amended GTCs, including choice of court, effected via amendments on the ‘Extranet’, which is the portal via which the hotel may update its information and retrieve reservations. Booking.com claimed these amounted to a ‘form which accords with practices which the parties have established between themselves’ pursuant to Article 25(1)(b). Parties will still argue on the merits whether the initial consent to the primary GTCs was strong-armed because of booking.com’s dominant position.

With respect to to the jurisdictional issue, the CJEU in a succinct judgment firstly points to the need for restrictive interpretation. It points at 29 to the claimant being the trigger of A7(1) or (2). Without a claimant’s decision to base a claim on the Articles, they simply do not get to be engaged. That is a reference to the forum shopping discussion of the AG. Still, the court hearing the action must assess whether the specific conditions laid down by those provisions are  met.

At 32, with reference to Brogsitter, ‘an action concerns matters relating to a contract within the meaning of [A7(1)(a) BIa] if the interpretation of the contract between the defendant and the applicant appears indispensable to establish the lawful or, on the contrary, unlawful nature of the conduct complained of against the former by the latter’.  ‘That is in particular the case of an action based on the terms of a contract or on rules of law which are applicable by reason of that contract’ (reference to Holterman and to Kareda, with the latter itself referring to De Bloos). At 33  ‘By contrast, where the applicant relies, in its application, on rules of liability in tort, delict or quasi-delict, namely breach of an obligation imposed by law, and where it does not appear indispensable to examine the content of the contract concluded with the defendant in order to assess whether the conduct of which the latter is accused is lawful or unlawful, since that obligation applies to the defendant independently of that contract, the cause of the action is a matter relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’.

At 32 therefore the CJEU would seem to confirm De Bloos’ awkward (given the Regulation’s attention to predictability) support for forum shopping based on claim formulation yet corrected by what is more akin to Sharpston AG’s approach in Ergo and the Court’s approach in Apple v eBizcuss, a judgment not referred in current judgment: namely that the judge will have to consider whether contractual interpretation is strictly necessary (the Court uses ‘indispensable’) to judge the case on the merits. Update 25 November 2020 as Tobias Lutzi notes here, it is the repeated (after its first use in Brogsitter) emphasis on ‘indispensable’ which might be the core clue of the CJEU: it would make the threshold for the 7(1) gateway in cases like these, high. A change in emphasis compared to Brogsitter, rather than one in substance.

Here, Wikingerhof rely on statutory German competition law (at 34-36): therefore the claim is one covered by Article 7(2).

The judgment confirms the now very fine thread between jurisdictional and merits review for the purposes of tort-based litigation between two contracting parties.

(Handbook of) European Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.11.2, Heading 2.2.11.2.9. 3rd ed. 2021 para 2.469.