Find a Barrister

Find an Arbitrator

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in posts
Search in pages
people

Contact

Contact with chambers should be made through the Practice Management Team. They are happy to discuss client requirements and provide further information on such matters as the expertise and experience of individual members, fees, working practices and languages spoken. We have members able to work in French, German, Italian, Spanish, Dutch, Swedish, Greek and Chinese (Mandarin).

Outside working hours, a member of our team is always available to be contacted on matters of an urgent nature. Contact should be made using the Chambers main number or email.

To contact our Singapore office, please contact our BD Director, Asia, Rachel Foxton. Out of office hours calls will automatically be diverted to our clerking team in London.

London

20 Essex Street
London
WC2R 3AL

enquiries@twentyessex.com
t: +44 20 7842 1200
DX 0009 Lond/Chan Lane

Singapore

28 Maxwell Road
#02-03
Maxwell Chambers Suites
Singapore 069120

singapore@twentyessex.com
t: +65 62257230

Contact

Contact with chambers should be made through the Practice Management Team. They are happy to discuss client requirements and provide further information on such matters as the expertise and experience of individual members, fees, working practices and languages spoken. We have members able to work in French, German, Italian, Spanish, Dutch, Swedish, Greek and Chinese (Mandarin).

Outside working hours, a member of our team is always available to be contacted on matters of an urgent nature. Contact should be made using the Chambers main number or email.

To contact our Singapore office, please contact our BD Director, Asia, Rachel Foxton. Out of office hours calls will automatically be diverted to our clerking team in London.

London

20 Essex Street
London
WC2R 3AL

enquiries@twentyessex.com
t: +44 20 7842 1200
DX 0009 Lond/Chan Lane

Singapore

28 Maxwell Road
#02-03
Maxwell Chambers Suites
Singapore 069120

singapore@twentyessex.com
t: +65 62257230

13/07/2018

Court of Appeal clarifies law as to service of claims under s423 of Insolvency Act out of the jurisdiction

The Court of Appeal has today handed down judgment in the case of Orexim Trading Limited v Mahavir Port and Terminal Private Limited [2018] EWCA Civ 1660, raising important issues as to the service of claims under s.423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 out of the jurisdiction.

The Claimant, Orexim, commenced proceedings in England claiming damages against the First Defendant, MPT, for breach of a settlement agreement. In addition, Orexim sought an order under s.423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 setting aside transactions pursuant to which MPT sold a vessel to the Second Defendant (Singmalloyd), and Singmalloyd in turn sold the vessel to the Third Defendant (Zen). The basis of that claim was that the transactions in question were entered into at an undervalue, for the purpose of putting the vessel beyond the reach of MPT’s creditors.

MPT and Zen are both Indian companies and Singmalloyd is a Singaporean company. The settlement agreement contained an English jurisdiction clause, and MPT therefore accepted that the Court had jurisdiction to hear that claim. However, both MPT and Zen brought applications challenging the Court’s jurisdiction to hear the claim under s.423.

At first instance, HHJ Waksman QC held that the Court lacked gateway jurisdiction to hear the s.423 claim. In particular, it was held that the gateway in paragraph 3.1(20) of PD 6B, which applies to “claims under an enactment which allows proceedings to be brought” did not, on its proper construction, cover claims under s.423. In reaching this conclusion, HHJ Waksman QC applied the decision of the Court of Appeal in Re Harrods (Buenos Aires) Ltd [1992] Ch 72, and declined to follow the decision of Flaux J in Erste Group Bank v JSC (VMZ Red October) [2013] EWHC 2926 (Comm).

The Court of Appeal disagreed with HHJ Waksman QC. It held that the decision in Re Harrods did not apply to gateway (20), and that “the time has now come to say that the court does have power under ‘gateway’ (20) to permit service of a claim under section 423 outside England and Wales” (para 47). However, the Court emphasised that this power is subject to important “safeguards” (para 49). In particular, relief under s.423 will not be granted unless it can be shown that there is a “sufficient connection” between the defendants and England and Wales to make such relief appropriate, and the Court will not grant permission to serve a claim under s.423 out of the jurisdiction unless it can be shown that there is a realistic prospect of establishing that connection.

The Court of Appeal accepted MPT’s and Zen’s arguments that, on the facts of the case, there was an insufficient connection between the Defendants and England and Wales to justify relief under s.423, and that the claim therefore had no reasonable prospect of success. In reaching this conclusion, the Court rejected a submission by Orexim that the fact that MPT had agreed to an English jurisdiction clause in the settlement agreement (which the claim under s.423 was brought in support of) provided a sufficient connection.  The Court also held that Orexim had not established that England and Wales was the proper place to hear the claim. It followed that the appeal failed.

Luke Pearce appeared on behalf of MPT.

 

Relevant members
Luke Pearce
Share