Proceedings were brought in England. The respondents sought a stay, saying the company was subject to insolvency proceedings in Germany.
Held: Our domestic insolvency law was not applicable to foreign proceedings, and so could not be used to order a stay of proceedings here. (a) the English court has jurisdiction to determine Apex’s claim for damages and for delivery up against Mrs Mazur under the Share Sale Agreement; (b) it will also have jurisdiction to determine Mazur Ltd’s claim against Mazur GmbH to title to the Masters under the Assignment and for delivery up, subject to the determination of the issue as to whether Mazur Ltd has an arguable case for a term to be implied by business efficacy principles or by custom; (c) there is no substantive or jurisdictional basis for Apex’s claim for a declaration that it has title to the Masters; (d) the court does not have jurisdiction over the tortious claims against any of the Defendants, nor over the claims against them (other than Mrs Mazur) for delivery up; and (e) there will be no stay in relation to those claims against Mazur GmbH over which the English court has jurisdiction.
Judges:
The Honourable Mr Justice Collins
Citations:
[2004] EWHC 1566 (Ch), Times 29-Jul-2004, [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 41, [2004] 1 WLR 2966
Links:
Statutes:
Council Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001, Insolvency Act 1986 130(2)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Kalfelis v Bankhaus Schroder, Munchmeyer, Hengst and Co and others ECJ 27-Sep-1988
ECJ For Article 6(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters to apply, a connection must exist between the various actions brought . .
Cited – Marinari v Lloyd’s Bank ECJ 19-Sep-1995
A ‘harmful event’ occurred where the physical damage was suffered and not at the time and place of a later financial loss.
Europa The term ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ in Article 5(3) of the . .
Cited – Canada Trust Company and others v Stolzenberg and others (2) CA 29-Oct-1997
The court looked at questions relating to domicile and jurisdiction; standard of proof, date to be determined and duties before service.
Held: The court is endeavouring to find an imprecise concept which reflects that the plaintiff must . .
Cited – Reichert and Kockler v Dresdner Bank ECJ 26-Mar-1992
The case concerned article 16(5) of the Brussels Convention, among other articles.
Held: It is necessary to take account of the fact that the essential purpose of the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the place in which the judgment has . .
Cited – Canada Trust Co and Others v Stolzenberg and Others (No 2) HL 12-Oct-2000
The plaintiffs alleged the involvement of the defendant in a conspiracy to defraud. He had been domiciled in England, but had moved to Germany. He denied that the UK court had jurisdiction. The court of appeal said that jurisdiction was determined . .
Cited – Reunion Europeenne Sa and Others v Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor Bv and Another ECJ 27-Oct-1998
French consignees of a shipment of peaches sued in France the Australian issuers of the bill of laiding under which the goods were carried (a contract claim) and the Dutch carriers and master of the ship in which they were carried (tort claims).
Cited – Handelskwekerij G. J. Bier BV v Mines de potasse d’Alsace SA ECJ 30-Nov-1976
Europa A discharge into the French part of the Rhine of saline waste caused alleged damage to the horticultural business of the first plaintiff, and to the waters of the Rhine in general in the Netherlands.
Cited – Shevill, Ixora Trading Inc., Chequepoint SARL and Chequepoint International Ltd v Presse Alliance SA ECJ 7-Mar-1995
On a proper construction of the expression ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ in Article 5(3) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters as amended by the Convention . .
Cited – Dumez France SA and Tracoba SARL v Hessische Landesbank and others ECJ 11-Jan-1990
ECJ The expression ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ contained in Article 5(3 ) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters may . .
Cited – International Factors v Rodriguez CA 1978
(Majority) Cheques were made payable to a company which had entered into a factoring agreement with the plaintiffs. The cheques were sent to the company in settlement of debts owed to the company but which had been assigned to the plaintiffs. The . .
Cited – Canada Trust Co and Others v Stolzenberg and Others (No 2) HL 12-Oct-2000
The plaintiffs alleged the involvement of the defendant in a conspiracy to defraud. He had been domiciled in England, but had moved to Germany. He denied that the UK court had jurisdiction. The court of appeal said that jurisdiction was determined . .
Cited – MCC Proceeds Inc (Incorporated Under the Laws of the State of Delaware, USA As Trustee of the Maxwell Macmillan Realization Liquidating Trust) v Lehman Brothers International (Europe) CA 19-Dec-1997
The owner only of an equitable interest in goods may not assert his interest against a bona fide purchaser of the legal title to the goods. International Factors v. Rodriguez was decided per incuriam to the extent that it held that equitable rights . .
Cited – Domicrest Ltd v Swiss Bank Corporation QBD 7-Jul-1998
An English claimant sued a Swiss bank for a negligent mis-statement made in a telephone call between England and Switzerland. The Swiss banker represented that the transmission of a copy payment order by the bank to the claimant was a guarantee that . .
Cited – Banque Indosuez v Ferromet Resources 1993
There is a general principle in favour of giving judicial assistance to foreign insolvency proceedings by preventing their disruption by the actions of individual creditors. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Jurisdiction, Insolvency, European
Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.198600