Summary
There was an application, seeking the English court approval arrangements under Section 899 from Pt 26 of the Companies Act. The applicant was a Dutch holding company which was the parent company of a Czech mining company, OKD, and a Polish mining company, Karbonia. An important issue was whether the English court had jurisdiction to approve the scheme. Mr Justice Norris held:
“18 I am satisfied that New World is an overseas company over which the court has jurisdiction. I am satisfied that New World has a sufficient connection with England and Wales for that jurisdiction to be exercisable. New World has moved its centre of main interests to London. That is now where its head office and principal place of business is located; where, under its amended articles of association, its centre of main interests may be located; where the meetings of its board of directors must take place; where under the Articles meetings of the shareholders must take place; it is where its key employees are now located, and where its management function is now discharged. These changes have been extensively advertised and it is plain that any creditor seeking to conduct business with New World would understand that the centre of its main interests is now located in London, at its London address; its London fax number; its London telephone numbers, and its London contacts as listed on its website. There is therefore no doubt that there is a sufficient connection with this jurisdiction.
19 I am satisfied that the Judgments Regulation does not require that any proceedings relating to the company's indebtedness must be conducted in some other jurisdiction under the provisions of the Regulation. That is because, at the very least, there are a sufficient number of creditors domiciled in England and Wales to found the jurisdiction to commence proceedings in this jurisdiction, proceedings into which other non-domiciled creditors could properly be joined under Article 6 of the Regulation.
[…]
23 Accordingly, I am satisfied that I do have jurisdiction to consider the scheme and may properly exercise it.” [18, 19 and 23]