Summary
The second defendant, Mr McKillen, was Irish. The anchor defendant, Coroin, was an English company. The claimants submitted that the defendant had received significant loans which were repayable before 31st March 2010. Although the claimants accepted that the defendant’s failure to repay the loans did not amount to default within the meaning of the loan agreement, they argued that the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Act 2013 entitled the claimant to sell the second defendant’s shares in the first defendant. To this end, the claimants sought from the English court a declaration that the defendant’s Shareholder Security became enforceable.
The defendants challenged the jurisdiction of the English courts. On 8th May 2014, their challenge to jurisdiction was dismissed by Master Bowles. It was held that the English courts had jurisdiction under Article 6(1) of Brussels I. An appeal was made. On 6th June 2014, Proudman J made an order, directing that the application for permission to appeal had to be listed for oral hearing, with the appeal to follow (if permission to appeal was granted).
On 25th November 2014, the English High Court dismissed the appeal. His Honour Judge Behrens held:
“63 It follows that I agree with Master Bowles that Coroin is a party with a real (rather than a nominal) interest in the litigation. The proceedings against Coroin can in no sense be described as abusive. The issue is one in which Coroin has a real interest in the outcome. I also agree that the issues are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings.
[…]
67 In the circumstances I do not accept that it follows that the claim against Coroin for a declaration was bound to fail.
68 In the circumstances I agree with Master Bowles that the requirements of Article 6(1) are met and that he was right to dismiss the applications.” [63, 67 and 68]