Find a Barrister

Find an Arbitrator

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
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.

For our Singapore office, for client enquiries please contact our BD Director, Asia Pacific, Lara Quie and for all other queries please contact Lynn Quek. 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

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.

For our Singapore office, for client enquiries please contact our BD Director, Asia Pacific, Lara Quie and for all other queries please contact Lynn Quek. 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

Singapore

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

singapore@twentyessex.com
t: +65 62257230

04/07/2019

David Lewis QC and Andrew Dinsmore appear in jurisdiction challenge considering the role of multiplicity of proceedings in proper forum analysis

David Lewis QC and Andrew Dinsmore appeared for the Tenth Defendants (“Straits”) pursuing a jurisdiction challenge in E, D & F Man Capital Markets Limited v Come Harvest Limited & Others [2019] EWHC 1661 (Comm).

The underlying case concerns an alleged US$284m fraudulent conspiracy arising out of forged warehouse receipts said to relate to nickel held by a singaporean warehouse operator at a number of warehouses in Asia.

The crux of the challenge was that, at the time that permission to serve out was granted ex parte, the claimant was pursuing pre-action disclosure application against Straits in Singapore whilst also seeking to join Straits to the English proceedings. This was in circumstances where a jurisdictional pre-condition to obtaining pre-action disclosure in Singapore was an intention to bring substantive proceedings in Singapore. As such, Straits argued that England was not the proper place to determine the dispute because (i) it appeared that there were going to be parallel proceedings, (ii) the claimant should be held to its choice to bring an action in Singapore, and (iii) the key connecting factors were with Singapore. The claimant argued that by the time of the inter partes hearing the other nine defendants had submitted to the English jurisdiction (and that two were bound by exclusive jurisdiction clauses) with the result that the avoidance of a multiplicity of actions should be an overriding factor in favour of England.

The court considered and distinguished the recent Supreme Court decision of Lungowe v Vedanta [2019] 2 WLR 1051 on the relevance of avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings and held that such avoidance was an overriding consideration in favour of England in this case, with the result that the jurisdiction challenge should be dismissed. The judgment also covers procedural arguments as to amendments to pleadings between ex parte hearing and inter partes jurisdiction hearingsas previously considered in NML v  Argentina [2011] UKSC 31, as well as interesting issues on governing law under Article 4 and Article 10 of the Rome II Regulation.

Read the judgment

Relevant members
David Lewis KC Andrew Dinsmore
Share