BAS Capital Funding Corporation, Deutsche Bank Ag London, Paine Webber Capital Inc, PW Exe Lp, Pw Partners 1999 Lp v Medfinco Limited, Abacus Holdings Limited, Andreas W Gerdes, HTC Inc, etc: ChD 25 Jul 2003

The claimants wanted to bring actions in respect of various matters under shareholders agreements in complex international joint ventures. Leave was given to serve English proceedings in Malta, and the claim form and particulars of claim were faxed and emailed and delivered by hand at the registered offices of the company and at the private address of the owner and a director of the company. All these methods were ineffective as service under English law or Maltese law. The defendants challenged the jurisdiction of the English court, referring to an exclusive jurisdiction clause. Proceedings had been begun in Malta. The respondents denied that serious and grave matters had been alleged so as to bring into play section 402.
Held: The court set aside the order granting permission to serve the defendants out of the jurisdiction, except in relation to the alleged breach by the Company of the funding limits, and refused to grant the injunctions either in the wide form originally sought, or in the modified form suggested in correspondence.

Lawrence Collins J
[2003] EWHC 1798 (Ch), [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 652
Companies Act 1985 402
England and Wales
CitedThe Abidin Daver HL 1984
The House considered the application of the doctrine of forum conveniens.
Held: A stay of an English action on the ground of forum non conveniens could be resisted on the ground that justice could not be obtained in the otherwise more . .
CitedKonamaneni v Rolls Royce Industrial Power (India) Limited ChD 20-Dec-2001
The claimants founded their action on the assertion that the defendants had been corrupt in obtaining contracts in India. The defendants argued that the English courts had no jurisdiction. The claimants held various small shareholdings in a company . .
CitedMacKinnon v Donaldson, Lufkin and Jenrette Securities Corporation ChD 1986
A plaintiff in an English action had obtained an order against an American bank, served on its London office, requiring production of books and papers at its New York head office.
Held: The court pointed out the distinction between ‘personal . .
CitedPickering v Stephenson 1872
A company’s money should not be expended on disputes between the shareholders. . .
CitedRe Crossmore Electrical and Civil Engineering Ltd 1989
Disputes between shareholders should not be settled with assistance form the funds of the company. . .
CitedRe A Company No 01126 of 1992 1993
Company funds should not be used to support disputes between shareholders. . .
CitedSeaconsar Far East Ltd v Bank Markazi Jomhouri Islami Iran HL 15-Oct-1993
A plaintiff must show that there is a ‘serious issue for trial’ to support and justify an application for overseas service. The standard of proof in respect of the cause of action relied on is whether, on the evidence, there was a serious question . .
CitedThe Sky One 1988
RSC O.11, r.6(3)) did not provide exclusive methods of service. Service might be effected by private means rather than through the methods set out there, provided always that nothing was done in the country where service was to be effected which was . .
CitedKnauf UK GmbH v British Gypsum Ltd and Another CA 24-Oct-2001
Permission was sought to use alternative service to serve proceedings on a company. There was no exceptional difficulty in ordinary service, but the claimant wanted to ensure that a claim was heard within the UK jurisdiction, and expected that he . .
CitedAnderton v Clwyd County Council (No 2); Bryant v Pech and Another Dorgan v Home Office; Chambers v Southern Domestic Electrical Services Ltd; Cummins v Shell International Manning Services Ltd CA 3-Jul-2002
In each case, the applicant sought to argue that documents which had actually been received on a certain date should not be deemed to have been served on a different day because of the rule.
Held: The coming into force of the Human Rights Act . .
CitedNational Carriers Ltd v Panalpina (Northern) Ltd HL 11-Dec-1980
No Frustration of Lease through loss of access
The tenant’s access to the premises was closed by the local authority because it passed by a derelict and dangerous building. The tenant argued that its tenancy was frustrated.
Held: The lease was not frustrated. The lease had a term of ten . .
CitedThe Chaparral CA 1968
A contract conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the English court as a neutral forum. In the context not only of English and other jurisdiction clauses the court held: ‘In the present case the choice of the parties was the English Court, and . . I . .
CitedAkai Pty Ltd v People’s Insurance Co Ltd 1998
The principles applicable in deciding whether an exclusive jurisdiction clause applies are the same whether the jurisidiction selected is England or Wales or otherwise. . .
CitedImport Export Metro Ltd and Another v Compania Sud Americana De Vapores S A ComC 23-Jan-2003
. .
CitedAttock Cement Co v Romanian Bank for Foreign Trade CA 1989
Where the parties to a contract have agreed to an English forum it would require strong grounds for one of the parties to resist the exercise of jurisdiction by the English court: ‘We should also look with favour on a choice of our own jurisdiction, . .
CitedBritish Aerospace v Dee Howard 1993
Where a contract contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause providing for a case to be tried in the UK, it was relevant that the circumstances which might now suggest a trial elsewhere were perfectly foreseeable at the time of the contract. The new . .
CitedSociete Eram Shipping Company Limited and others v Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corp Ltd, Compagnie Internationale de Navigation HL 12-Jun-2003
The appeal concerned a final third party debt order (formerly a garnishee order). A judgment in France was registered here for enforcement. That jurisdiction was now challenged.
Held: A third party debt order is a proprietary remedy operating . .
CitedCredit Suisse Fides Trust SA v Cuoghi; Credit Suisse Fides Trust SA and Amhurst Brown Colombotti (a Firm) CA 11-Jun-1997
The claimant brought proceedings in Switzerland (a party to the Lugano Convention) against the defendant who was domiciled in England, alleging that he had conspired with one of the claimant’s employees to misappropriate some US$ 21 million. It was . .
CitedREFCO Capital Markets Ltd and Another v Eastern Trading Co, Credit Suisse (First Boston) Ltd and Another CA 17-Jun-1998
An application for Mareva relief was granted under s.25 where proceedings were pending in the US against Lebanese defendants arising out of futures transactions with respect of assets in England. On the application to discharge the order, the lower . .
CitedMotorola Credit Corporation v Uzan and Others CA 26-Jun-2002
A world wide asset freezing order had been made. The defendants sought that it be set aside. Pending the hearing of their application, they sought also delay of their obligation to co-operate in providing full details of their finances.
Held: . .
CitedBabanaft International Co SA v Bassatne CA 30-Jun-1988
The court considered whether the state in which enforcement of a judgment will take place should be the place where the debt is situated upon which it is sought to execute.
Held: There was nothing to preclude English courts from granting . .
CitedCastanho v Brown and Root (UK) Ltd HL 1981
A claim was made for an anti-suit injunction.
Held: The court is reluctant to make orders which would be ineffective to achieve what they set out to do, but the fear that the defendant will not obey an injunction is not a bar to its grant. The . .

Cited by:
CitedBasil Shiblaq v Kahraman Sadikoglu (No 2) ComC 30-Jul-2004
The court considered whether there had been effective service of proceedings on defendants in Turkey. Evidence was given as to the effectiveness of such service in Turkish law.
Held: The defendant’s application to set aside the judgment in . .
CitedNussberger and Another v Phillips and Another (No 4) CA 19-May-2006
A claim was issued in London in December 2004, and then served in part in Switzerland in January 2005. One copy was removed from the bundle by a Swiss official, seeing that it had been marked ‘Nor for service out of the jurisdiction.’ That marking . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Company

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.186465