Posts Tagged Jurisdiction
 EWHC 3568 (Comm) Enka Insaat ve Sanayi v OOO “Insurance Company Chubb” et al. is the very swift follow-up to  EWHC 2729 (Comm) which I review here. I flag the case mostly for:
- at 8, Baker J siding with Males J (and myself) per Nori Holding, that West Tankers is still good authority following Brussels Ia despite Wathelet AG’s suggestions in Gazprom;
- the brief reference at 9, as to whether under Rome I injunctive relief for threat of contractual breach is covered by lex fori or lex contractus. Baker J concludes that issue simply by reminding us that Rome I does not apply to arbitration agreements;
- At 47 ff the discussion of choice of law in spite of no express clause having been included to that effect. Specifically, with reference to Sulamerica, whether choice of seat may imply choice of law.
(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.1.
Punjab National Bank. In a complex set of claims, Owusu is never easily applied and material non-disclosure severely punished by the High Court.
In  EWHC 3495 (Ch) Punjabi National Bank v Ravi Srnivasan et al three loan transactions lie at the core of the case. They were made between 29th March 2011 and 1st December 2014, and totaled some US$45 million. They were made for the purposes of oil re-refining and wind energy generating projects in the USA. Most defendants are all allegedly guarantors domiciled either in India or the USA. The borrowers themselves, with the exception of two defendants, both ex-EU, are not party to the proceedings because they are insolvent.
Proceedings concern both the enforcement of the loans but also allegations of fraud, and have also been started in the US and in India however these were not disclosed to the court at the time the original permission was sought to serve out of jurisdiction.
At first glimpse the case might be easily held, along the lines suggested by lead counsel for claimant: at 5 (iii). ‘A combination of the exclusive jurisdiction clauses and the strongly arguable claims in fraud pointed towards the need to try the whole matter in one jurisdiction. England was the only possible jurisdiction. The omission to disclose the US proceedings and the Chennai proceedings caused the defendants no prejudice as they knew from the loan documentation that PNB was at liberty to bring parallel enforcement proceedings in different jurisdictions. The Chief Master ought to have placed strong reliance on articles 3 and 5 of the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements (the “Hague Convention”), and article 25 of The Recast Brussels Regulation (“Brussels Recast”), which obliged the court to accept jurisdiction where there were such exclusive jurisdiction clauses.’
Owusu v Jackson would suggest no entertainment at all of forum non conveniens. However the fraud allegations initially opened the door to a point of entry for forum non seeing as none of the defendants are EU based. Sir Geoffrey Vos at 63 lists the relevant factors: ‘the most important being the choice of jurisdiction clauses in both loan agreements and guarantees, the effect of Brussels Recast and the Hague Convention, the fact that some parallel proceedings can be necessary where enforcement against real property is required, and the centre of gravity of the lending relationship which was indeed in London. In addition, the US and Chennai proceedings did not cover the Pesco loans at all, so that disallowing English jurisdiction for those contractual claims prevented PNB from bringing proceedings in its main chosen jurisdiction in respect of that lending and the guarantees given in respect of it.’
In the end however Vos agreed with the initial assessment of the High Court which emphasised non-disclosure (undoubtedly an example of procedural fraus): notwithstanding England being the most appropriate forum for those contractual claims without clear choice of court, and without a doubt the English jurisdiction guarantees of the other loans, but also for the fraud claims, had they been (which they were not) seriously arguable as presently pleaded, (at 72) jurisdiction must be dismissed in light of the need to protect the administration of justice and uphold the public interest in requiring full and fair disclosure.
That is a strict approach in light of the choice of court made and an awkward way around the forceful nature of Article 25 Brussels Ia. An outcome of my discussion with Andrew Dickinson and Alex Layton, is (per Alex’ suggestion) that the High Court seems to have applied an Elefteria approach to choice of court rather than Article 25 BIa.
In C-493/18 UB v VA, proceedings took place between UB, on the one hand, and VA, Tiger SCI, WZ, as UB’s trustee in bankruptcy, and Banque patrimoine et immobilier SA, on the other, concerning the sale of immovable property originally owned by UB and mortgages granted over that property by UB and the action taken by WZ to have those transactions declared ineffective as against the bankruptcy estate.
A little bit of factual background may be useful – for that reference is best made to the judgment. Essentially, an avoidance (insolvency pauliana) action was launched given suspicious transactions between UB and his sister. On 10 May 2011, UB was, on his own petition, declared bankrupt by Croydon County Court. On 1 July 2011, WZ was appointed UB’s trustee in bankruptcy, with effect from 6 July 2011. At WZ’s request, Croydon County Court authorised WZ on 26 October 2011 to bring an action before the French courts in order, first, to have the bankruptcy order registered and, second, to obtain a ruling that the sale of the properties referred to in paragraph 12 above and the mortgages granted over those properties to VA (‘the sales and mortgages at issue’) were transactions at an undervalue or for no consideration under the relevant United Kingdom bankruptcy law provisions. WZ thus sought a decision authorising the restitution of those properties to UB’s bankruptcy estate, for the purposes of their disposal. The French courts granted the declaration.
The legal issue under consideration is the reach of the Insolvency Regulation’s establishment of jurisdiction for the courts of the Member State of COMI. Does it extend to an action by a trustee in bankruptcy appointed by a court of the Member State in which the insolvency proceedings were opened (here: the UK) the purpose of which is to obtain a declaration that mortgages registered over immovable property situated in another Member State (here: France) and the sale of that property are ineffective as against the bankruptcy estate.
The CJEU correctly emphasises that the Insolvency Regulation old or new does not impose any rule conferring on the courts of the place where immovable property is located international jurisdiction to hear an action for the restitution of those assets to the bankruptcy estate in insolvency proceedings. Furthermore, concentrating all the actions directly related to the insolvency proceedings before the courts of the Member State within the territory of which with those proceedings were opened is consistent with the objective of improving the efficiency and speed of insolvency proceedings having cross-border effects. Support for this ex multi: Wiemer & Trachte.
The English courts therefore should have exercised jurisdiction per vis attractiva concursus – the file before the CJEU does not reveal its hesitation to do so. It does reveal that UB claims among others that the insolvency proceedings in England had already been concluded and presumably therefore the pauliana time-barred.
(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 5 Heading 5.4.1. Chapter 2 Heading 22.214.171.124.1
 EWHC 3196 (Ch) Kinsella et al v Emasan et al is not quite as extensive an analysis on choice of court as Etihad Airways v Prof Dr Lucas Flöther which I review here. Nevertheless the required ‘good arguable case’ standard is again responsible for the extensive discussion of the issue.
Issues are similar as under A25 BIa – in the case at issue it is the Lugano Convention (Article 23) that is engaged. Teverson M’s analysis is very much a factual, contractual one: the basis of Emasan’s (defendant, domiciled at Switzerland) jurisdiction challenge is that: it is domiciled in Switzerland; an alleged 2002 Agreement was an oral agreement which was not subject to any jurisdiction agreement; that alleged 2002 Agreement was not varied by 2006 and 2007 Deeds in such a way as to bring claims for breaches of its alleged terms within the ambit of the jurisdiction clauses contained in those later Deeds, but was superseded by them; there is no other basis upon which the jurisdiction of the English Courts is established in relation to claims based on the 2002 Agreement.
Whether choice of court was made for the 2002 agreement depended on whether A23 Lugano’s conditions were fulfilled that the agreement be made in writing or evidenced in writing; or in a form which accords with practices which the parties have established between themselves (the lex mercatoria gateway was not relevant at issue).
Every one of the written agreements made to give effect to claimant’s entitlement under the original, oral 2002 Agreement included a jurisdiction clause recognising the jurisdiction of the English Courts. A great deal of emphasis was placed on witness statements. At 101 Master Teverson holds that the agreement on jurisdiction under the 2002 agreement can properly in the circumstances of this case be regarded as evidenced by the jurisdiction clauses in the 2006 and 2007 Deeds.
(Handbook of) European Private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Ch.2, Heading 2.2.9
 EWHC 3128 (Comm) Lotus v Marcassus Sport Sarl concerns the application of Articles 29-30 Brussels Ia – the lis alibi pendens rules.
Lotus, an English company, is a well-known manufacturer of cars. By a series of four written contracts entered in 2016, Lotus appointed Marcassus, a French company in the business of distributing sports cars, as a non-exclusive dealer and authorised repairer of Lotus cars in Toulouse and Bordeaux. Each of these contracts was governed by English law and provided for the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts.
In September 2018 Lotus gave notice terminating one of the four agreements. It is common ground that the parties’ overall relationship thereafter terminated. Marcassus then brought proceedings in the Toulouse Commercial Court, claiming loss of profits and bonuses and seeking to enforce contractual penalties. A summons was filed with the Hussier de Justice on 21 December 2018 for onward transmission to the Foreign Process Section of the High Court for service on Lotus, summoning Lotus to appear in Toulouse on 26 March 2019. Marcassus’ claim was filed at the Toulouse Commercial Court on 7 January 2019. Lotus did indeed appear at the hearing on 26 March 2019 and has served a defence disputing the claim, but not claiming in respect of or relying on Marcassus’ non-payment of the 2018 invoices. Lotus offered to undertake not to make such a claim in the Toulouse proceedings hereafter, provided of course that these proceedings were permitted to continue. Meanwhile, on 13 March 2019, Lotus issued these proceedings claiming the amounts due under the 2018 invoices. Marcassus was served with the claim form on 24 April 2019.
Phillips J first of all (at 15 ff ) deals with the issue of which course was ‘seized’ first (compare MB v TB). Lotus contended that Marcassus’ application should fall at the first hurdle because Marcassus has not demonstrated when, if at all, the summons in the Toulouse proceedings was received by the “authority responsible for service” of that summons for the purposes of A32 Brussels Ia, and so cannot establish that the Toulouse court was seised before the English court was seised by the issue of the claim form on 13 March 2019. Marcassus’ case is that the relevant authority is the Hussier de Justice, it being accepted that he received the summons on 21 December 2018. But, in the alternative, if the relevant authority is the Foreign Process Section of the High Court (as Lotus contends), Marcassus invites the inference that it was received by that authority shortly after that date, but in any event before 13 March 2019. Marcassus points to the fact that Lotus appeared before the Toulouse court on 26 March 2019 and has taken no point on service in those proceedings.
Phillips J decides not to hold on this point given that he rejects Article 29 lis alibi pendens anyway – however he indicates he does not find Lotus’ assertion very attractive.
On Article 29, Marcassus accepted that the proceedings, whilst between the same parties, do not presently involve the same “cause of action” however argued that the court could take into account the likely future shape of the proceedings, namely, that Marcassus would seek to set-off and counterclaim the very same claims it has brought in Toulouse. This approach however cannot fly per CJEU C-111/01 Gantner, at 31: in order to determine whether there is lis pendens in relation to two disputes, account cannot be taken of the defence submissions, whatever their nature, and in particular of defence submissions alleging set-off, on which a defendant might subsequently rely when the court is definitively seised in accordance with its national law” and the Article 29 route was duly dismissed.
On Article 30, the claims were found not to be ‘related’ on grounds of Lotus having secured an exclusion of set-off in the contract (Phillips J spent some time debating whether the contract did include such clear exclusion of set-off). This clause effectively keeps the claims on various invoices at arm’s length.
Even had Article 30’s conditions been met, the case would not have been stayed on grounds that the judge (unlike in A29 cases) has discretion whether to do so. Referring to The Alexandros T, at 44: ‘it is obvious that these proceedings should be permitted to continue so that the question of whether clause 29.2 is an effective no set-off clause is determined in this jurisdiction. That issue. (sic) which does not arise in the Toulouse proceedings (limiting the extent of “relatedness”), is an issue of the interpretation of an English law contract (establishing close proximity with this jurisdiction) and can be determined speedily in a summary judgment application (indicating that the stage proceedings have reached is not a factor against this jurisdiction). Further, the parties have expressly agreed to the jurisdiction of the English courts, albeit on a non-exclusive basis.
(Handbook of) European Private International Law – 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 126.96.36.199
Vestel v HEVC Advance (Delaware) and Philips (NL). High Court denies stand-alone competition law damage both on the basis of Article 7(2) BRU Ia and residual CPR rules.
In  EWHC 2766 (Ch) Vestel Elektronik v HEVC Advance and Koninklijke Philips NV, Hacon J found no jurisdiction in a stand-alone competition law damages case (no finding of infringement yet; claim is one of abuse of dominant position). He rejected the existence of jurisdiction against Philips NV (of The Netherlands) on the basis that no damage existing or potential could be shown grounding Article 7(2) Brussels Ia tortious Jurisdiction. Against the Delaware defendant, the relevant CPR rules applied per Four Seasons v Brownlie did not lead to jurisdiction either.
(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 188.8.131.52