EUPillar Shekhar Dooma Shetty v AL Rushaid Petroleum Co & others v Shekhar Dooma Shetty & others [2011] EWHC 1460 (Ch)

Summary

The claimant, Mr Shetty, was an employee of the two companies from the Al Rushaid group, ASPIC and Cleveland Bridge. Both companies were defendants in the action which was initiated by Mr Shetty. In September 2009, Mr Shetty was dismissed from his employment. Mr Shetty commenced proceedings in England. The parties had agreed that English courts will have exclusive jurisdiction. On 9th March 2010, the defendants, ARPIC and Cleveland Bridge submitted a defence, alleging that Mr Shetty was guilty of fraud. The details of the alleged misconduct were set in a separate action by another company in the Al-Rushaid group, ARPD. The action was initiated against Mr Shetty, and two other defendants, Mr Caplis and Mr Wight, under Article 6(1). Mr Caplis and Mr Wight challenged, the English court jurisdiction submitting that Mr Shetty was not domiciled in England, but in India. In the circumstance, ARPIC, Cleveland Bridge and ARPD decided to change their strategies. ARPIC and Cleveland Bridge made a request to Master Bowles to join ARPD as a third defendant in the action initiated by Mr Shetty. Further, on 18 November 2010, they requested the Master to permit the defendants to make a counterclaim and issue an additional claim against Mr Caplis and Mr Wight. The request, without notice, was granted by the Master. Mr Shetty, Mr Caplis and Mr Wight applied for the order to be set aside. On 9th June 2011, the English High Court refused the request by Mr Shetty, Mr Caplis and Mr Wight. Mr Christopher Pymont QC, sitting as Deputy Judge of the High Court, held: “33 I turn therefore to consider the effect of Article 6(2) . For the reasons I have given, I have no doubt that the additional claim is sufficiently closely connected to the original proceedings to fall within its terms. A trial in England of all these related and overlapping issues would in my judgment fulfil the purpose of Article 6(2) to secure the rational and efficient disposal of trials and in particular to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments. To put it another way, I cannot see how anything is to be gained or in what respects the interests of justice and good administration are to be served by having a trial in England of all issues affecting Mr Shetty and a different trial in Spain or Scotland of all issues affecting Mr Caplis and Mr Wight, with all the risks that that will involve of irreconcilable judgments. If Mr Caplis and Mr Wight are not present or compellable at the trial involving Mr Shetty and Mr Shetty is not present or compellable at the trial involving Mr Caplis and Mr Wight, the risk of irreconcilable judgments is all the greater because the courts could be acting on different evidence. The only expedient course in this case is to ensure that all parties are brought before the same court, in England.” [33].