EUPillar Latmar Holdings Corporation v Media Focus Limited & Others [2012] EWHC 262 (Comm)

Summary

The claimant sued for damages. It was alleged that the defendants had conspired, siphoning funds. The claimant was a Liberian company. The first defendant, Media Focus, was an English company. An Austrian company, Arindal, was another defendant. The English court’s jurisdiction over the claims against Arindal was challenged. The question was whether the English court had jurisdiction under Brussels I. On 10th February 2012, the High Court dismissed the defendants’ challenge, holding that the English courts had jurisdiction. Mr Justice Eder held: 44 […] I am content to proceed on the basis that there is at the very least a good arguable case in favour of the claimant under this head. For these reasons, insofar as may be necessary, I would also conclude that the claimant can found jurisdiction against these defendants under article 23.1 although, given my conclusion with regard to article 6.1, this is, as I have already said, strictly unnecessary.” [44] An appeal was made. On 17th January 2013, the Court of Appeal confirmed the High Court judgment, dismissing the appeal. Lord Justice Toulson held: “44 [...] there is no single formula for determining whether the connection is such as to give rise to a risk of irreconcilable judgments if the claims were determined separately. Whatever the precise legal bases of the claims, it is necessary for the court to examine their essence in the relevant factual context and assess whether their nature and interrelationship are such that, if tried separately, there would be a risk of essentially incompatible judgments, so as to make it expedient in the interests of justice for them to be heard together. Whether the overlap between the claims is such as to have that effect is inevitably a fact specific question. 45 In this case, viewed at the date of the issue of the claim form, the trial of the issues relating to the Media Focus advisory services agreement was bound to involve close examination of the Arindal advisory services agreement (which in turn involved the original Arindal agreements) because the simultaneous preparation of the advisory services agreements provided an important part of the context in which each was produced. For the judge to try the case relating to Media Focus with the evidence about Arindal excluded would be to try it with one eye shut. It would be unrealistic and potentially unjust. Inevitably the judge would have to make findings about the honesty of the appellants in relation both to Media Focus and to Arindal in considering questions of the liability of themselves and other relevant parties, including Media Focus, arising from the Media Focus advisory services agreement. If the claim in relation to Arindal had to proceed in Latvia, there would be an inherent risk of another court reaching a diametrically opposite conclusion about the appellants’ honesty in relation to Arindal. It seems to me, therefore, that there would be a clear risk of contradictory findings if the two parts of Latmar’s claim had to be severed, such that it is expedient in the interests of justice that they should be heard together.” [44-45]