EUPillar SMI Group Limited v Daniel Levy, Marta Levy, IB Consultancy BV, Mr Ilja Bonsen [2012] EWHC 3078 (Ch)

Summary

The claimant was an English company. The first two defendant, Mrs and Mr Levy, were former employees of the claimant. They negotiated with the fourth defendant, Mr Bonsen, to start working for the third defendant, IB Consultancy. The claims against the first and second defendants were for a breach of fiduciary duties and/or breach of confidence. The claimants also alleged that the third and fourth defendants induced and/or knowingly assisted in the breaches. The defendants challenged the jurisdiction of the English court. The defendant’s jurisdictional challenge was dismissed by the English High Court. Ms Anderson QC held: “44 It follows that the claimant, in my judgment, has at least a good arguable case that the place where the harmful event occurred for the purposes of regulation 5(3) is, at the least, in the United Kingdom and possibly elsewhere. This disposes of the argument advanced by Mr Bonsen in his letters to the effect that there is a dispute over these facts because, in my judgment, it is sufficient that the claimant has established a good arguable case on the facts as I have already indicated and within the meaning I have already indicated. It also disposes of his argument that, even on the facts pleaded by the claimant, the fourth defendant would not be personally liable. I am satisfied on the basis of the evidence before me that the claimant has at least an arguable case that the fourth defendant controls and is the directing mind of the third defendant company. In any event the claimant's case is that the fourth defendant and the third defendant are liable as tortfeasors in their own right. […] 49 Finally, therefore, insofar as Mr Bonsen's arguments are concerned, I deal with the position of the prior proceedings in the Hague. I have already read out Article 31 . That has the effect that an application for provisional or protective measures in one member state, even where the courts of another member state have jurisdiction over the substance of the matter, can be brought. The best evidence before me, it seems to me, as to the nature of the process in Holland is in the form of a letter exhibited to the witness statement of Mr Butler at page 10 of “DB1”. That is a letter from Kriek Wille of Van Doorne who are advocates and notaries in Amsterdam. Their address is Jachthavenweg 121, 1081 KM Amsterdam PO Box 75265, 1070 AG Amsterdam, and Ms. Wille is an advocate. What Ms. Wille says (and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary I am prepared to accept for present purposes) is this. The litigation commenced in Holland leads only to the obtaining of provisional measures in cases of urgency and that they are summary proceedings under Dutch law and therefore proceedings within paragraph 31 of the Regulation. [44 and 49]