Summary
The claimant, JEB Recoveries, was an assignee of debts allegedly owned by the defendant, Mr Binstock.
The value of the claim was exceeding £10 million.
The English proceedings were commenced on 28th October 2014. There were four elements of the claim which were based on four different contracts of services.
The jurisdiction was sought to be established on the ground of Article 2 and/or 5(1) of Brussels I.
The defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the English courts.
The evidence before the English court suggested that the defendant was not domiciled in England. As a result, the defendant’s challenge to jurisdiction was upheld by the English court in respect of three claims arising out of contracts in which the services were provided outside of the jurisdiction.
However, the jurisdiction was assumed in respect of the claim arising out of the contract which was to be performed in England. His Honour Judge Simon Barker held:
“15 […] the allegations relating to the provision of services in the first claim is for those services to be provided entirely outside the jurisdiction of this court. In the second claim, there is no suggestion that services were or were intended to be provided inside the jurisdiction of this court and similarly for the fourth claim. The positon is different though in connection with the third claim, which is for the provision of services by Mr Wilson for the attainment of a reverse takeover by which Mr Binstock's business interests would be reversed into a company not active but having cash which had to be located. For this purpose, Mr Wilson located himself largely in the Paris flat of Mr Binstock, but it is alleged at paragraph 41 of the particulars of claim that Mr Wilson worked with BDO, a well-known firm of accountants, in London to source a clean company with cash and no trading history and that talks went on for several months in or around 2010. What the paragraph in the particulars of claim leaves at least as a matter of ambiguity is whether the work on the part of Mr Wilson with BDO actually took place in London or whether the reference to London was to the particular office of BDO with which Mr Wilson dealt.
16 […] the procurement of an English corporate vehicle for the reverse takeover seems to have been the intention of Mr Binstock. True it is that that could have been undertaken remotely from and without coming within this jurisdiction, but it is not surprising that there was some activity within the jurisdiction. Whether that is sufficient or not, and Mr Vineall submits that that is not sufficient, is another matter. It is not possible, on the allegations as they stand before me, to discern the importance or otherwise of the work undertaken leading up to and at the meeting in London.
17 Nevertheless, it seems to me that there is, on this aspect of the claim alone, a sufficient connection with this jurisdiction for the court, at this stage and in principle, to entertain that claim which is the third claim in this action.
18 In terms of the outcome of the jurisdiction challenge, I reject the contention that the first, second and fourth claims are capable of properly being the subject of proceedings justiciable within the jurisdiction of this court. On the application, Mr Vineall succeeds in relation, at least, to those claims in the action; however, in relation to the third claim, there is, it seems to me, a sufficient connection for that claim to proceed in this jurisdiction.” [15-18]