The claimants alleged breach of trust by the defendants in their promotion of an investment scheme which went on to fail. One defendant, a Swiss bank now sought a declaration that the court had no jurisdiction over it.
Held: The defendant’s application succeeded: ‘t has not been established that the claims sought to be made against MFC are so closely connected with the claims made against the other defendants in these proceedings that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings. Accordingly, the requirements of Article 6(1) have not been shown to be satisfied and jurisdiction must be declined. ‘
Judges:
Hamblen J
Citations:
[2010] EWHC 2281 (Comm), [2011] ILPr 9
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Brown and Others v InnovatorOne Plc and Others ComC 19-Jun-2009
The claimants served proceedings by fax. The defendants denied that it was effective saying that they had not confirmed that they were instructed to accept service or that as required by the rules they had confirmed that they would accept service by . .
Cited by:
See Also – Brown and Others v InnovatorOne Plc and Others ComC 18-May-2012
The claimants had been advised to invest in a scheme promoted by the defendants with the assistance of their solicitors. On the failure of the scheme they now sought relief alleging inter alia, breach of trust.
Held: The claims failed. In . .
See Also – Brown and Others v Innovatorone Plc and Others CA 4-Dec-2012
The claimants appealed against rejection of their claims of breach of trust against the respndents and their solicitors in the promotion of investment semes which went on to fail. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice
Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.440447