Summary
The claimant, Sana, lived in New York. She was one of the three children of Hassib Sabbagh who died intestate on 12th January 2010.
The second defendant, Said, and Hassib were the founders and driving forces in CCC group. Sana is suing various family members and companies owned/controlled by them.
The English proceedings were initiated under Article 6(1) of Brussels I. The anchor defendant was Sana’s cousin, Wael, who was non-executive chairman of CCG. There were conspiracy claims against the defendants. First, it was alleged that the defendants conspired against her and her father to misappropriate his assets. The value of the asset misappropriation claim was $75 million. Secondly, it was alleged that the defendants conspired to deprive her of her entitlement to shares in CCG. The value of the second claim was estimated at $520 million.
The defendants challenged the jurisdiction of the English court.
The existence of a triable claim against the anchor defendant was central to establishing jurisdiction.
The English court held that Sana had not established that there is a serious issue to be tried in respect of the deprivation claim. However, the English court held that it had jurisdiction over the asset misappropriation claim. Mrs Justice Carr held that:
“212 The Defendants seek to submit that even if there are serious issues to be tried on the merits against Wael, there are no serious issues to be tried against the Second to Ninth Defendants and there is no good arguable case for jurisdiction against the Second to Ninth Defendants under Article 6(1) .
213 As a preliminary objection, Sana takes the point, in my judgment reasonably, that this contention does not form part of the Second to Ninth Defendants' applications. Those applications make it clear that the application by reference to the absence of a serious issue to be tried for the purpose of Article 6(1) is limited to the case against Wael and not broader. The broader contention was raised for the first time by the Defendants in the skeleton argument for Samir, Suheil, Wahbe and HH. Sana says that, had the application extended to these matters, further evidence would have been submitted, in particular, in relation to the individual positions and involvements of each of the additional Defendants.
214 I accept that Sana is prejudiced by the late taking of this point, which is one that ought to have been taken formally in the applications and on any view on proper notice. The Defendants' additional points under Article 6(1) are thus not properly open to them. The Defendants are right to say that it was always for Sana to satisfy the requirements of Article 6(1) against all of them. But if there was to be a challenge as to whether or not she had done so, it needed to be raised formally and timeously.
215 However, for the avoidance of doubt, were the points to have been open to the Defendants, I would in any event have dismissed them.
216 In my judgment, and considering the relevant additional Defendants separately and individually, there is a good arguable case for jurisdiction in respect of each on the asset misappropriation claim.
[…]
271 Making an overall judgment and classification by reference to the individual claims, as it is right to do in accordance with the principles outlined above, and looking through a European lens, I do not accept that the principal subject-matter of the share deprivation or asset misappropriation claim is either succession for the purpose of Article 1(2) nor the validity of decisions of the organs of CCG for the purpose of Article 22(2). […]” [212-216 and 271]
There is now an appeal before the English Court of Appeal.