EUPillar Antonio Gramsci Shipping Corp & Ors v Recoletos Ltd & Ors [2012] I.L.Pr. 36

Summary

On the claimant’s side, there were multiple claimants. The dispute concerned charterparties of vessels owned by Antonio Gramsci. On the defendant’s side, there were a number of corporate defendants as well as a number of individuals (i.e. beneficial owners of the companies.). The claimants brought a monetary claim for the amount of approximately $100 million. The defendants challenged the jurisdiction of the English court. On 25th February 2011, Mr Justice Burton dismissed the jurisdictional challenge. In April 2011, the claimants joined another beneficial owner, Mr Aivars Lembergs. On 24th August 2011, Mr Lembergs challenged the jurisdiction of the English court. In the meantime, the judgment of the English Court of Appeal in VTB Capital was rendered, overruling Mr Justice Burton’s judgment. In view of the developments, Mr Lembergs’s jurisdictional challenge was sustained by the English High Court. Mr Justice Teare held “66 In circumstances where, on the evidence adduced by the claimants, Mr Lembergs has induced the claimants to contract with the Corporate Defendants on terms which included a jurisdiction clause in favour of the English court but where there is no evidence that Mr Lembergs has himself expressed or indicated any willingness (public or otherwise) that claims brought against him by the claimants may be tried in the English court, I do not consider that there is an arguable case that Mr Lembergs has indicated his willingness to be sued in the English court so as to give rise to the sort of consensus required by art.23. Just as it is not permissible to raise the corporate veil to reveal Mr Lembergs as party to the charterparties and to the jurisdiction clause within them so it is not possible, in my judgment, to raise the corporate veil to reveal Mr Lembergs as a person expressing his willingness to submit to the jurisdiction of the English court. It is, it seems to me, unrealistic (or, as the Court of Appeal has more forcibly put it, “pure fiction”) to say that Mr Lembergs has demonstrated a willingness to have claims against him brought in the English court when he has, on the claimants’ case, carefully avoided doing that and has, at best, demonstrated only a willingness that claims against the Corporate Defendants be brought in the English court.” [2012] I.L.Pr. 36 [61]. The decision was confirmed by the Court of Appeal. No reference to the CJEU was considered necessary. [2013] EWCA Civ 730 [67].