Tchenguiz and others v Grant Thornton UK LLP and others (Proctor, third party)
[2015] EWHC 1864 (Comm)
QBD
1 July 2015
Carr J
Appearances

Romie Tager QC, Jonathan Crystal and Samantha Knights (instructed by McGuireWoods London LLP ) for the Claimants; Robert Miles QC, Jeremy Goldring QC and Mr Tom Gentleman (instructed by Travers Smith LLP ) for the fourth and fifth Defendants; the first to third defendants and the third party did not appear and were not represented.

CONFLICT OF LAWSTortJurisdictionClaimants alleging torts of malicious prosecution, conspiracy to injure by unlawful means, and malicious procurement of arrest and search documentationWhether action to be stayedCredit Institutions (Reorganisation and Winding-up) Regulations 2004, reg 5Lugano Convention, art 1(2)(b)

The claimants alleged that the individual defendants had committed the torts of malicious prosecution, conspiracy to injure by unlawful means, and malicious procurement of arrest and search warrants and execution of the same. The fourth defendant bank was alleged to be vicariously responsible for the acts of first defendant accountancy firm and the fifth defendant, an Icelandic lawyer who was a member of the fourth defendant’s resolution committee and latterly its winding up committee. The fourth and fifth defendants applied pursuant to CPR Pt 11 for the dismissal or stay of the claim against them on the grounds that (a) the claimants were barred from bringing the proceedings against the fourth defendant under Icelandic law, which had effect in England under regulation 5 of the Credit Institutions (Reorganisation and Winding-up) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/1045) (“the insolvency ground”), and (b) that the English court had no jurisdiction because the proceedings fell within the scope of the exception in article 1(2)(b) of the Lugano Convention (“the jurisdiction ground”).

Decision

The proceedings against the fourth defendant were brought in breach of a prohibition on legal action against the fourth defendant contained in regulation 5 of the 2004 Regulations. The claims against each of the fourth and fifth defendants fell within the scope of the Lugano Convention and were not excluded by article 1(2)(b). Accordingly, the application on the insolvency ground was granted and the application on the jurisdiction ground was refused.

Relevant cases considered
Fondazione Enasarco v Lehman Brothers Finance SA [2014] EWHC 34 (Ch); [2014] 2 BCLC 662
Lornamead Acquisitions Ltd v Kaupthing Bank HF [2011] EWHC 2611 (Comm); [2013] 1 BCLC 73
Rubin v Eurofinance SA [2012] UKSC 46; [2013] 1 AC 236; [2012] 3 WLR 1019; [2013] Bus LR 1, SC(E)
Relevant legislation considered

Credit Institutions (Reorganisation and Winding-up) Regulations 2004, reg 5

Lugano Convention, art 1(2)(b)

We use cookies on this website, you can read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. To use website as intended please Accept Cookies