EUPillar Apax Global Payment & Technologies Limted & Another v Morina & Other [2011] EWHC 2983 (Ch)

Summary

The claimant, Apax, was an English company. The company was in liquidation. The claimant commenced legal proceedings in England against the former directors and secretaries of the companies as well as against other companies from the Apax group of companies. The second claimants is Anfield. Anfield obtained a default judgment against Apax. The claimants argued that through actions of the former directors, and pursuant to a conspiracy the sum of approximately $7 million was misappropriated by the defendants. Jurisdiction was challenged. Only two of the defendants were domiciled in England. Two other defendants were domiciled in Germany, and the fifth defendant was resident in the US. The English High Court dismissed the jurisdictional challenge, holding that it had jurisdiction. In this context, Mr Justice David Richards stated: “14 […] the first and second defendants were resident and domiciled in the United Kingdom. [...] I accept that the evidence establishes their residence and domicile in the United Kingdom and that accordingly the court has jurisdiction as regards the claim against the third and fourth defendants by virtue of article 6.1 of the judgments regulation and against the fifth defendant by virtue of CPR PD6(b)paragraph 3.13 . 15 Ordinarily the substantial participation by the third to fifth defendants in the proceedings would have necessarily constituted a submission to the jurisdiction of the court, thereby in any event giving the court jurisdiction over the claims against them. Mr Auld QC for the claimants placed heavy reliance on such participation. He may well be right to do so, but unusually in this case the right of the defendants to challenge the jurisdiction of the court was expressly preserved by most of the interlocutory orders. Although the third and fifth defendants issued applications to challenge the jurisdiction of the court under CPR part 11 , they never pursued them. Nonetheless I am satisfied that in any event, for the reasons already given, this court has jurisdiction in the claims against the third to fifth defendants.” [14-15]