Posts Tagged Lugano Convention
French Supreme Court on cover by Lugano of legal fees in criminal proceedings – and the proper limits of the ordre public test.
The criminal courts at Geneva have condemned claimant, domiciled at France, to pay a criminal fine of 3,600.00 Swiss Francs, a well as 36,000.00 Swiss Francs towards defendant’s legal fees. The latter were incurred given that defendant in current legal proceedings had entered a civil claim in the Swiss criminal proceedings: a claim which the Geneva judge ordered to be settled through the Swiss courts in civil cases.
Upon fighting the request for exequatur, claimant first of all argues that the French courts’ acceptance of exequatur via the Lugano Convention is outside the scope of that Convention. The matter, he argues, is not civil or commercial seeing as the civil claim was not even entertained.
This of course brings one to the discussion on the scope of application of Lugano (and Brussels Ia) and the perennial difficulty of focusing on nature of the claim v nature of the underlying facts and exercised powers. Now, for civil claims brought before criminal courts there is not so much doubt per se, seeing inter alia that Article 7(3) Brussels Ia (Article 5(4) Lugano 2007) has a specific head of jurisdiction for such civil claims. Claimant’s point of argument here evidently is that this should not cover this particular claim seeing as the legal representation at issue turned out to be without purpose. Not being privy to the discussions that took place at the Geneva court, I evidently do not know the extent of discussion having taken place there (there is no trace of it in the Supreme Court judgment) however one assumes that the Geneva proceedings in theory could have dealt with the civil side of the litigation yet for a factual or legal reason eventually did not. Over and above the intensity of discussions being difficult to employ as a decisive criterion, one can also appreciate the difficulty in separating the civil from the criminal side of the argument made by defendant’s lawyers.
Of perhaps more general interest is the Supreme Court’s rebuke of the lower courts’ treatment of ordre public. Exequatur was granted because, the lower courts had held, the judge in the substantial proceedings has the sovereign right to establish costs under the relevant national procedure. This, it was suggested by these lower courts, shields it from ordre public scrutiny – a clear misunderstanding of the ordre public test. Part of the ordre public considerations had also been that the relative slide in the strength of the Swiss Franc v the Euro, and the generally higher costs of living in Switzerland, put the cost award in perspective. Moreover the judges found that there was insufficient information on the length of the proceedings in Switserland, and the complexity of the arguments. That, however, is exactly the kind of data which the judge in an exequatur assessment ough to gauge.
(Handbook of) European Private International Law, 2n ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 220.127.116.11.
Bosworth (Arcadia Petroleum), and Pillar Securitisation. Two AGs on protected categories (consumers, employees) in the Lugano Convention- therefore also Brussels I Recast.
Update 11 April 2019. The CJEU held today in Bosworth: no contract for employment. the AG’s Opinion and Gross J’s analysis confirmed.
Update 06 02 2018 I have inserted in the analysis below of Arcadia, a reference to De Bloos, in the context of the forumshopping considerations (I have also tidied up punctuation in that section).
Twice last week did the Lugano Convention’s protected categories title feature at the Court of Justice. On Tuesday, Szpunar AG opined in C-694/17 Pillar Securitisation v Hildur Arnadottir (consumer protection), and on Thursday Saugmansgaard ØE opined in C-603/17 Bosworth (Arcadia Petroleum) (employment contracts).
The issues that are being interpreted are materially very similar as in Brussels I Recast hence both evidently have an impact on the Brussels I Recast Regulation, too.
At stake in Pillar Securitisation (no English version of the Opinion at the time of writing) is the meaning of ‘outside his trade or profession’ in the consumer title. Advocate General Szpunar takes the case as a trigger to fine-tune the exact relationship between private international law such as was the case, he suggests, in Kainz and also in Vapenik.
I wrote in my review of Vapenik at the time: ‘I disagree though with the Court’s reference to substantive European consumer law, in particular the Directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts. Not because it is particularly harmful in the case at issue. Rather because I do not think conflict of laws should be too polluted with substantive law considerations. (See also my approval of Kainz).’
Ms Arnadottir’s case relates to the Kaupting reorganisation. Her personal loan exceeded one million € and therefore is not covered by Directive 2008/48 on credit agreements for consumers (maximum threshold there is 75K). Does that exclude her contract being covered by Lugano’s consumer Title?
The Directive’s core notion is ‘transaction’, as opposed to Lugano’s ‘contract’ (at 30 ff). And the Advocate-General of course has no option but to note the support given by the Court to consistent interpretation, in Vapenik. Yet at 42 ff he suggests a narrow reading of Vapenik, for a variety of reasons, including
- the presence, here, of Lugano States (not just EU Member States);
- the need for consistent interpretation between Lugano and Brussels (which does not support giving too much weight to EU secondary law outside the private international law sphere);
- and, most importantly, Kainz: a judgment, unlike Vapenik, which directly concerns Brussels I (and therefore also the link with Lugano). One of the implications which as I noted a the time I like a lot, is precisely its respect for the design and purpose of private international law rules as opposed to other rules of secondary law; and within PIL, the distinction between jurisdiction and applicable law.
At 52 ff Advocate General Szpunar rejects further arguments invoked by parties to suggest the consumer title of the jurisdictional rules should be aligned with secondary EU consumer law. His line of reasoning is solid, however: autonomous interpretation of EU private international law prevents automatic alignment between consumer law and PIL.
Should the CJEU follow its first Advocate General, which along Kainz I suggest it should, no doubt distinguishing will be suggested given the presence of Lugano parties in Pillar Securitisation – yet the emphasis on autonomous interpretation suggest a wider calling.
C‑603/17 Bosworth v Arcadia then was sent up to Luxembourg by the UK’s Supreme Court [UKSC 2016/0181, upon appeal from  EWCA Civ 818]. It concerns the employment Title of Lugano 2007. (Which only the other week featured at the High Court in Cunico v Daskalakis).
As helpfully summarised by Philip Croall, Samantha Trevan and Abigail Lovell, the issue is whether the English courts have jurisdiction over claims for conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, dishonest assistance and knowing receipt brought against former employees of certain of the claimant companies now domiciled in Switzerland. In the main proceedings, the referring court must therefore determine whether the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction to rule on those claims or whether it is the courts of Switzerland, as courts of the domicile of the former directors implicated, that must hear all or part of the claims.
Gross J at the Court of Appeal had applied Holterman and Brogsitter, particularly in fact the Opinion of Jääskinen AG in Brogsitter – albeit with caution, for the AG’s Opinion was not adopted ‘wholesale’ by the CJEU (at 58, Court of Appeal). The mere fact that there is a contract of employment between parties is not sufficient to justify the application of the employment section of (here) the Lugano Convention. Gross J at 67: “do the conspiracy claims relate to the Appellants’ individual contracts of employment? Is there a material nexus between the conduct complained of and those contracts? Can the legal basis of these claims reasonably be regarded as a breach of those contracts so that it is indispensable to consider them in order to resolve the matter in dispute?”. Gross J had answered that whilst not every conspiracy would fall outside the relevant section, and those articles could not be circumvented simply by pleading a claim in conspiracy, in the circumstances of this case, however precisely the test was formulated, the answer was clearly “no”. Key to the alleged fraud lay in his view not in the appellants’ contracts of employment, but in their de facto roles as CEO and CFO of the Arcadia Group.
The facts behind the case are particularly complex, as are the various wrongdoings which the directors are accused of and there is little merit in my rehashing the extensive summary by the AG (the SC’s hearings leading to the referral lasted over a day and a half).
Saugmansgaard ØE essentially confirms Gross J’s analysis.
Company directors who carry out their duties in full autonomy are not bound to the company for which they perform those duties by an ‘individual contract of employment’ within the meaning of the employment section – there is no subordination (at 46). Note that like Szpunar SG, Saugmansgaard ØE too emphasises autonomous interpretation and no automatic colouring of one field of EU law by another: ‘the interpretation which the Court of Justice gives to a concept in one field of EU law cannot automatically be applied in a different field’ (at 49).
In the alternative (should the CJEU accept a relationship of employment), he opines that a claim made between parties to such a ‘contract’ and legally based in tort does fall within the scope of that section where the dispute arose in connection with the employment relationship. Secondly, he argues that an ‘employer’ within the meaning of the provisions of that section is not necessarily solely the person with whom the employee formally concluded a contract of employment (at 109). What the AG has in mind are group relations, where ‘an organic and economic link’ between two companies exists, one of whom sues even if the contract of employment is not directly with that company.
It is in this, subsidiary section, at 66 ff, that the AG revisits for the sake of completeness, the difference between ‘contract’ and ‘tort’ in EU pil. This is a section which among others will delight (and occupy) one of my PhD students, Michiel Poesen, who is writing his PhD on same. Michiel is chewing on the Opinion as we speak and no doubt will soon have relevant analysis of his own.
At 82 ff the AG points to the difficulties of the Brogsitter and other lines of cases. ‘(T)he case-law of the Court is ambiguous, to say the least, in so far as concerns the way in which Article 5(1) and Article 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation and the Lugano II Convention are to be applied in cases where there are concurrent liabilities. It would be useful for the Court to clarify its position in this regard.’
At 83: it is preferable to adopt the logic resulting from [Kalfelis] and to classify a claim as ‘contractual’ or ‘tortious’ with regard to the substantive legal basis relied on by the applicant. At the very least, the Court in the AG’s view should hold on to a strict reading of the judgment in Brogsitter’: at 79: ‘the Court meant to classify as ‘contractual’ claims of liability in tort the merits of which depend on the content of the contractual duties binding the parties to the dispute.’ This in the view of the AG should be so even if (at 84) this authorises a degree of forum shopping, enabling the applicant to choose jurisdiction, with an eye to the appropriate rules. The AG points out that forum shopping particularly for special jurisdictional rules, is not at all absent from either Regulation or Convention.
Forum shopping considerations in (now) Article 7(1) have been an issue since the seminal case of De Bloos, C-14/76: at 13: ‘for the purposes of determining the place of performance within the meaning of Article 5, quoted above, the obligation to be taken into account is that which corresponds to the contractual right on which the plaintiff’s action is based.’ Among others Brogsitter may be seen as an attempt by the Court to manage the forum shopping considerations arising from De Bloos. It would be good for the Court to clarify whether De Bloos is still good authority, given the many textual changes and case-law considerations of (now) Article 7(1).
Finally, there is of course an applicable law dimension to the dispute although this does not feature in the reference. The relationships between companies and their directors are governed not by employment law, but by company law (at 52). For an EU judge, the Rome I and Rome II Regulations kicks in. Rome I contains, in Article 8, provisions relating to ‘individual employment contracts’, however it also provides, in Article 1(2)(f), that ‘questions governed by the law of companies’ concerning, inter alia, the ‘internal organisation’ of companies are excluded from its scope (at 55). Rome II likewise has a company law exemption. That puts into perspective the need (or not; readers know that I am weary of this) to apply Rome I and Brussels /Lugano consistently.
One had better sit down for a while when reviewing these Opinions.
Handbook of) European Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 18.104.22.168, Heading 22.214.171.124, Heading 126.96.36.199.9.
In  EWHC 57 (Comm) Cunico v Daskalakis Baker J applies the employment and choice of court titles of the Lugano Convention 2007. Mr Daskalakis and the second defendant, Mr Mundhra, worked for the Cunico group. The group operated in base metals industries and markets. Defendants’ primary jobs were CEO and CFO respectively of Feni Industries AD (‘Feni’), the main industrial operating subsidiary of the group, incorporated and operating in FYR Macedonia. Feni owned and operated a ferronickel production plant in Kavadarci and the Rzanovo iron and nickel mine 50 km or so south of the city.
It is necessary to give a little bit of factual background to appreciate the jurisdictional issues.
Cunico Resources NV (‘Resources’) was incorporated in the Netherlands, to become the group holding company, in May 2007. Marketing was incorporated in Dubai, UAE, in July 2007, and operated in the Jebel Ali Free Zone as the main market-facing trading entity in the group. Resources had no operating activities. It existed as a holding company for the operating subsidiaries as investment assets, with a single dedicated (full-time) employee. Marketing traded by purchasing ore from other Cunico subsidiaries, and bailing the ore to a ferronickel plant within the group under a ‘tolling agreement’, for conversion by the plant to finished ferronickel. Marketing then sold the finished product to the market. Under the tolling agreement, fees for converting Marketing’s ore into finished ferronickel would be payable by Marketing to the operator of the ferronickel plant (e.g. Feni).
The Cunico group was owned, at the time of the events said to give rise to claims against the defendants, as a joint venture between International Mineral Resources BV (‘IMR’) and BSGR Cooperatief UA (‘BSGR’). Latterly, IMR has effectively all but bought BSGR out, via the intervention of proceedings in the Amsterdam Enterprise Chamber, so that today Resources is owned as to c.80% by Summerside Investments S.a.r.l., IMR’s parent company, with 50% of the remainder owned by each of IMR and BSGR.
Now, crucially (at 6): so-called ‘Advisory Contracts’ were signed as between Marketing and each of the defendants, in 2007 and again in 2010, that contained a jurisdiction provision in these words: “In case of disagreements, they shall be solved in the Court of the United Kingdom“. The claimants say that provision gives this court jurisdiction over their respective claims against the defendants under Article 23 of the Lugano Convention. It is common ground that the defendants were domiciled in Switzerland when proceedings were brought and that the claims brought against them are within the material scope of the Lugano Convention, so indeed it governs the question of jurisdiction in this case. It is also common ground that, in this international business context, the reference in the Advisory Contracts to “the Court of the United Kingdom” should be interpreted to mean the courts of England and Wales.
Marketing claims that defendants received bonus payments from Marketing to which they were not entitled and/or to procure payment of which they acted in breach of contractual and fiduciary duties owed to it.
The principal issue is whether the claims made are matters relating to individual contracts of employment so as to engage Section 5 of the Lugano Convention. Any claims that do engage Section 5 cannot be brought in England.
At 23: For each claim advanced by each claimant against either defendant, the question of jurisdiction gives rise to the following issues in this case:
i) Is that claim a matter relating to the employment of the defendant by that claimant, for the purpose of Section 5 of the Lugano Convention?
ii) If not, is that claim within the scope of the jurisdiction provision in either of the defendant’s Advisory Contracts?
iii) If so, for a claim by Resources or Feni, does that jurisdiction provision confer on the claimant an effective benefit? (This is a question under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, as each Advisory Contract was a contract only between the respective defendant and Marketing.)
Baker J decides following lengthy overview of the ’employment’ history of defendants that they were indeed employed across the group, and that Lugano’s employment heading therefore points away from jurisdiction in England. Surprisingly he does not refer at all to any CJEU precedent such as Holterman. The employment argument having succeeded, no assessment is made of Lugano’s choice of court provisions.
(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 188.8.131.52.
PrivatBank v Kolomoisky and Boholiubov. The High court puts the spotlight on the abuse of the anchor mechanism, on reflexive effect of lis alibi pendens, and on Article 34’s new rule.
In  EWHC 3308 (Ch) PrivatBank v Kolomoisky and Boholiubov et al the High Court has set aside a worldwide freezing order (‘WFO’) granted earlier at the request of Ukraine’s PrivatBank, against Ihor Kolomoisky and Hennadiy Boholiubov – its two former main shareholders.
The case considers a high number of issues to which even a long blog post cannot do justice – I will consider these further in a paper in progress.
The issues to be determined, are
- First, whether the Bank has a good arguable case (as pleaded in the particulars of claim) that loss of US$1.91 billion plus interest was caused to it by the alleged fraud of the Defendants. For the purposes of these applications, all Defendants do not dispute that there is a good arguable case that US$248 million of loss was caused to the Bank by the pleaded fraud, but they deny any good arguable case of loss in excess of that amount.
- Second, whether the worldwide freezing orders should be set aside in whole or in part for non-disclosure or misrepresentation, or reduced to or reimposed in a lesser maximum sum than the current maximum sum of US$2.6 billion.
- Third, whether the Court has jurisdiction over the First and Second Defendants under Article 6.1 Lugano by reason of the claim against the English Defendants as “anchor defendants”. Although the claims as pleaded against the First and Second Defendants and the English Defendants are closely connected, the particular issue is whether the claim against the English Defendants was brought with the sole object of removing the First and Second Defendants from Swiss jurisdiction and so was an abuse of Article 6
- Fourth, if there is jurisdiction against the First and Second Defendants, whether the claims against them and the English Defendants should be stayed on grounds of lis pendens in Ukraine. This raises separate questions:
- a) Whether the Court has power to stay proceedings against the First and Second Defendants (where jurisdiction only exists (if at all) under the Lugano Convention) in favour of proceedings in a non-Convention state, namely Ukraine. The First and Second Defendants argue that Article 28 of the Convention, which empowers a Convention State to stay proceedings on grounds of lis pendens in another Convention State, should be applied by analogy (or ‘reflexively’ in favour of proceedings in a non-Convention State.
- b) Whether the Court should stay proceedings against the English Defendants (who are sued in accordance with Article 4 of the recast Brussels Regulation) in favour of proceedings in Ukraine. The issue here is as to the meaning, effect and application of Article 34 of the Regulation, which as from 10 January 2015 conferred a power on EU States in defined circumstances to stay proceedings in favour of proceedings in a non-Member State (“a third State”).
- Fifth, to the extent that the Court has power to stay on grounds of lis pendens in Ukraine, whether it should exercise that power given the nature of the proceedings in Ukraine, the degree of connection between the Bank’s claim and Ukraine and the risk of irreconcilable judgments if no stay is granted.
- Sixth, whether the Court should set aside the permission granted without notice to serve the claim form on the BVI Defendants out of the jurisdiction, or alternatively stay the proceedings against the BVI Defendants on grounds of forum non conveniens.
Fancourt J’s judgment implies in essence
First of all, very careful and complete consideration of the Lugano Convention’s anchor defendant mechanism.
(hence also implicating Brussels I Recast case-law, particularly Reisch Montage, Freeport and CDC), but also Sabbagh v Khoury, in which as I noted at the time the Court of Appeal struggles with the precise role for merits review in examining a potential abuse of the anchor defendant mechanism.
One assumes counsel for the defendants did an excellent job in deciphering precedent. This includes Ali Malek QC who is clearly a counsel of choice for international litigation, witness his involvement in other cases, too, this week: on which more soon on the blog.
Kolomoisky and Boholiubov may be sued in England and Wales, despite their Swiss domicile, only if the claims against them and the claims against the English Defendants are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together, to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings: that is the wording of Article 6.1 of the Lugano Convention, as it is of (now) Article 8(1) Brussels I Recast.
[Note parties, Mr Bogolyubov specifically, earlier in the year in  EWHC 160 (Ch) successfully had applied for a declaration that they were not domiciled in the UK; hence no Article 4 jurisdiction.
As I have pointed out on various occasions (use ‘fraud’ or ‘fraus’ as a search term in the blog’s search box), abuse is not a concept easily caught in statute and given the need for high predictability in the application of the Brussels and Lugano regimes, the CJEU is not finding it easy to provide much instruction.
Justice Fancourt excellently reviews the issues 85 ff and it is best to let those paras speak for their insightful selves. One readers have done so, they will see that at 93, his conclusion is ‘any artificial fulfilment (or apparent fulfilment) of the express requirements of Article 6.1 is impermissible, and this includes a case where the sole object of the claim against the anchor defendant is to remove the foreign defendant from the jurisdiction of domicile. Bringing a hopeless claim is one example of such abuse, but the abuse may be otherwise established by clear evidence. In principle, the fact that there is a good arguable case against the anchor defendant should not prevent a co-defendant from establishing abuse on some other ground, including that the “sole object” of the claim is to provide jurisdiction against a foreign domiciled co-defendant.‘
Onus of proof of abuse lies on the defendant, and it was met here: the English Defendants serving as anchor, are not considered legitimate targets in their own right. Five reasons for same are listed in para 99 ff: it is clear that a single criterion will not be enough to meet the burden of proof, rather a number if indications will contribute to an overall finding of abuse.
Having established that the Switzerland-based defendants ought to be sued there or indeed in the Ukraine, the Court turns to the English defendants’ attempt to have it apply Brussels I Recast’s new Article 34 rule on lis alibi pendens in favour of third States.
At 129, Justice Fancourt reviews the cases which might potentially be said to be ‘related’ to the English proceedings. At the heart of that analysis lies a defamation claim which (at 144) ‘Although the causes of action in the Ukrainian claim of the First Defendant and the claim of the Bank in the current proceedings are quite different, I am satisfied that there is considerable factual overlap between the allegations made against the Defendants in the Bank’s claim and the allegations published by the Ukrainian journal that the First Defendant seeks to challenge as unfounded and defamatory in the Ukrainian proceedings. The general subject-matter is one and the same: a fraudulent scheme to embezzle huge sums of money from the Bank, orchestrated by the First and Second Defendants and making use of a large number of shell companies, including the English and BVI Defendants, to circulate monies and conceal their whereabouts. Key issues that may have to be determined in each claim will be: whether there was a fraudulent scheme; who set it up and operated it; how did it work; what was its purpose; who benefited from the scheme, and how much money was unlawfully removed from the Bank.’
This analysis presumes, in my view correctly, that the term ‘related’ in the Article 34 rule, is to be interpreted in line with (now) Article 30 Brussels I Recast on related intra-EU actions.
At 145: ‘if the appeal in the defamation proceedings were to fail, or the claims be otherwise disposed of on a limited point of law, any stay granted under Article 34 (or by analogy with it) will be lifted.‘
Upon reflection, a stay of proceedings in favour of the Ukranaian case, is granted, for the reasons that
- (the ultimate condition for applying Article 34) a potential eventual judgment in Ukraine on the defamation case is likely to be recognised and enforced in England; this is the so-called [but not so by the High Court 🙂 ] Anerkennungsprognose;
- the claim has a high proximity to the Ukraine: the issues raised in common by the defamation claim and the current proceedings are almost exclusively concerned with events in Ukraine; the majority of witnesses will be Ukrainian, and Ukrainian law will apply to decide both sets of proceedings. By contrast, none of the harmful acts complained of occurred in England; the matters in issue have no connection with England at all, and the existence of three English defendants is of no materiality. The proximity of the claim to Ukraine therefore points strongly in favour of a stay.
- finally, at 158 ff: The Bank nevertheless argues that a stay would be contrary to the proper administration of justice – a core criterion to Article 34. ‘It contends that the current proceedings cry out for determination by a truly independent tribunal. But the Bank does not contend that the Ukrainian court is unable to resolve the issues or that it cannot obtain justice in Ukraine. There is no evidence on the basis of which this court can conclude that the Ukrainian courts would not provide justice to the parties. Similarly, there is no evidence before the court that would justify a conclusion that the Ukrainian judiciary is not independent. The Bank complains about how the First Defendant obtained an interim injunction against the Bank and Hogan Lovells on 15th December 2017, without proper process taking place; but this order was set aside in Ukraine on appeal, demonstrating that justice can be achieved by the Bank.’
Note that at 161 Justice Fancourt emphasises the unfinished character of the stay: ‘The argument against a stay would have greater weight if the stay to be granted under Article 34 (or by reference to its principles) were a once and for all decision, but it is clear that it should not be so confined. Under Article 34.2, these proceedings may be continued at any time when it is appropriate to do so, and so potential prejudice to the Bank in granting a stay is thereby limited. If the appeal in Ukraine is dismissed, or if though successful the claim is disposed of without a judgment on the merits, or if the First Defendant does not properly pursue the claim to judgment, the grounds for a continuing stay are likely to fall away’.
Fancourt J also adds obiter that had he accepted jurisdiction against the Switzerland-based defendants on the basis of the anchor mechanism, he would have granted a stay in those proceedings, too, applying the lis alibi pendens rule of Lugano reflexively, despite the absence of an Article 34 mechanism in Lugano. Consideration of this issue is at 114 ff, with of course reference to Ferrexpo. (Although even there this particular point may have been made obiter, as Justice Fancourt himself points out at 123). The suggestion is made that in accepting such reflexive, ex-Lugano effect of the Lugano lis alibi pendens rule, the courts should take instruction from the Article 34 Brussels I-Recast conditions. This is not a straightforward proposition by any means and the debate is far from settled.
Finally, jurisdiction against the BVI defendants is dismissed at this time on the basis of forum non conveniens: at 172 and necessarily entangled with the other findings: ‘So far as forum conveniens is concerned, the claim against the First and Second Defendants will not proceed in England. The natural forum for a trial of that claim is Ukraine though, as regards Lugano Convention States, the First and Second Defendants are entitled to be sued in Switzerland. The task of the court in exercising its discretion is to identify the forum in which the case can be suitably tried in the interests of all the parties and for the ends of justice: see Altimo Holdings at . The natural forum is Ukraine, in that all the parties are Ukrainian, almost all the events occurred in Ukraine and Ukrainian law is the governing law. There is no suggestion by any party that they cannot have a fair trial in Ukraine. However, the Bank may not be willing to sue the First and Second Defendants in Ukraine: if it cannot sue them in England it may sue them in Switzerland.
With PrivatBank v Kolomoisky and Boholiubov we now have a much more reasoned application of Article 34 than the more concise considerations in B.win v Emerald Bay and also interesting additional analysis as compared to Zavarco.
(Handbook of) European Private International Law – 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 184.108.40.206
JSC BTA Bank v Khrapunov. UK Supreme Court confirms the conspiracy itself, not its implementation, as locus delicti commissi under Lugano. Does not entertain locus damni.
The UK Supreme Court held in  UKSC 19 JSC BTA Bank v Khrapunov late March. Defendant is based in Switzerland, hence triggering the Lugano Convention. Addleshaw Goddard have the history of the case and I am happy to refer for those facts. Suffice to say that at the core is a claim in tort of conspiracy, alleging that Mr Khrapunov and his father in-law Mr Ablyazov conspired to injure the Bank by preventing it from enforcing its judgments against Mr Ablyazov’s assets.
First let’s have a look at was not discussed at the SC: domicile and locus damni. As for the former, domicile once held but now fleed from was correctly rejected by Teare J as establishing domicile under Lugano (or indeed Brussels). The argument that jurisdiction should, nevertheless, be taken still to be domiciled in England because defendant was in breach of an obligation under the worldwide freezing order prohibiting him from leaving the jurisdiction, was likewise rejected. An interesting proposition though.
Now, for the location of the locus damni. At 29 the SC refers to the Bank’s argument at the High Court and Court of Appeal stage. The Bank’s argument was that the damage occurred in England. This was based on the contention that its worldwide freezing order and its judgments against Mr Ablyazov were located here and had been reduced in value by the alleged conduct in relation to assets in other jurisdictions. The High Court and Court of Appeal considered that the element of damage proximate to the harmful event was the Bank’s inability or reduced ability to execute against those assets in the places where they were located. Another fine example of the difficult implications of Bier and not one which the CJEU has hitherto had the occasion to review. (But current case will not reach it).
As for locus delicti commissi, the Bank submit that the event giving rise to the damage was the conspiracy itself, which was hatched in England. At the High Court Teare J rejected this submission, because he considered that the cause of the damage was not the conspiracy but its implementation: a suggestion I like in the context of competition law, as readers of the blog will be aware. Teare J was not followed by the Court of Appeal though, which identified the place where the conspiratorial agreement was made as the place of the event which gives rise to and is at the origin of the damage.
The SC refers to CJEU authority to conclude with CDC and at 41 it reiterates the CA’s core reasoning: ‘As Sales LJ explained (at para 76), in entering into the agreement Mr Khrapunov would have encouraged and procured the commission of unlawful acts by agreeing to help Mr Ablyazov to carry the scheme into effect. Thereafter, Mr Khrapunov’s alleged dealing with assets the subject of the freezing and receivership orders would have been undertaken pursuant to and in implementation of that agreement, whether or not he was acting on instructions from Mr Ablyazov.’
The Supreme Court concludes that the making of the agreement in England should be regarded as the harmful event which set the tort in motion.
The judgment keeps open many issues, however. For starters, to have a sole birthplace of conspiratorial agreement is handy in the case at issue however it is likely not often to be so clearly the case (as Dan and Tom point out, particularly not in a digital context). Moreover, for those instances where Mr Khrapunov were not to be acting on instructions from Mr Ablyazov, questions of ultra vires so to speak and hence of a separate tort would arise.
(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 220.127.116.11
The French Cour de Cassation’s in Banque Privee Edmond de Rothschild Europe v X held that a unilateral jurisdiction clause was invalid under (doubtful) reference to (then) Article 23 of the Brussels I Regulation. The clause was held not to be binding under the French doctrine of clauses potestatives, even though the agreed forum was Luxembourg (whence the validity of the clause was judged under the lex fori derogati, not prorogati; that will no longer be possible under the recast Jurisdiction Regulation). In Credit Suisse, it extended this view (without reference this time to clauses potestatives) to choice of court in the context of the Lugano Convention.
In Apple Sales international v eBizcuss.com, the Cour de Cassation effectively qualifies its Rotschild case-law. The Court of Appeal held as unacceptable, under the theory of clauses potestatives, choice of court obliging eBizcuss to sue in Ireland, while allowing Apple Sales International to sue either in Ireland, or the place of registered office of eBizcuss, or any place where Apple Sales would have suffered damage. The Cour de Cassation now held that this clause is perfectly acceptable under Article 23 (now 25)’s regime for it corresponds to the need of foreseeability. (Which more extreme unilateral clauses arguably do not have). As always, the judgment is scant on details of the underlying contract whence it is not entirely clear whether French law was lex contractus or whether the Cour stuck to lex fori as determining validity of choice of court.
Kaupthing: the High Court interprets (and rejects) Lugano insolvency exception viz the Icelandic Banking crisis.
Thank you Eiríkur Thorláksson (whose expert report fed substantially into the Court’s findings) for flagging and for additional insight: In Tchenguiz v Kaupthing, the High Court had to review the insolvency exception to the Lugano Convention, combined with Directive 2001/24 on the reorganisation and winding-up of credit institutions. Directive 2001/24 applies to UK /Iceland relations following the EFTA Agreement. See my earlier post on Sabena, for Lugano context. Mr Tchenguiz is a London-based property developer. He claims against Kaupthing; Johannes Johannsson, a member of Kaupthing’s winding-up committee; accountants Grant Thornton; and two of its partners.
While Directive 2001/24 evidently is lex specialis vis-a-vis the Insolvency Regulation, much of the ECJ’s case-law under the Regulation is of relevance to the Directive, too. That is because, as Carr J notes, much of the substantial content of the Regulation has been carried over into the Directive. Carr J does emphasise (at 76) that the dovetailing between the Lugano Convention /the Judgments Regulation, and the Insolvency Regulation, carried over into the 2001 Directive does not extend to matters of choice of law. [A bit of explanation: insolvency was excluded from the Judgments Regulation (and from the Convention before it) because it was envisaged to be included in what eventually became the Insolvency Regulation. Consequently the Judgments Regulation and the Insolvency Regulation clearly dovetail when it comes to their respective scope of application]. That is because neither Lugano nor the Judgments Regulation consider choice of law: they are limited to jurisdiction.
On the substance of jurisdiction, the High Court found, applying relevant precedent (German Graphics, Gourdain, etc.), that the claims against both Kaupthing and Mr Johansson are within the Lugano Convention and not excluded by Article 1(2)(b) of that Convention. That meant that Icelandic law became applicable law by virtue of Directive 2001/24, and under Icelandic law proceedings against credit institutions being wound up come not be brought before the courts in ordinary (rather, a specific procedure before the winding-up committee of the bank applies). No jurisdiction in the UK therefore for the claim aganst the bank. The claim against Mr Johansson can go ahead.
[For the purpose of this blog, the jurisdictional issues are of most relevance. For Kaupthing it was even more important that the Bankruptcy Act in Iceland was found to have extra-territorial effect. The Act on Financial Undertakings implemented the winding-up directive and the Icelandic legislator intented it to have extra-territorial effect].
A complex set of arguments was raised and the judgment consequentially is not an easy or quick read. However the above should be the gist of it. I would suggest the findings are especially crucial with respect to the relation between Lugano /Brussels I, Directive 2001/24, and the Insolvency Regulation.