Find a Barrister

Find an Arbitrator

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
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

23/10/2012

Rubin and another v Eurofinance SA and others

This is an archived article, and some links may not work. Contact us if you have any questions.

 

Subject: Insolvency Other related subjects: Conflict of laws

Keywords: Avoidance; Cross-border insolvency; Enforcement; Foreign judgments; Insolvency proceedings; Recognition of judgments

Summary: In a long awaited judgment, the Supreme Court has reversed the controversial decision of the Court of Appeal in Rubin v Eurofinance [2010] EWCA Civ 895. The Court of Appeal had held that judgments of foreign bankruptcy courts in proceedings to adjust or set aside transactions entered into prior to the commencement of the foreign bankruptcy were in a special category that could be enforced in England whether or not the defendant had submitted to the jurisdiction of the foreign court.

In conjoined appeals brought by the appellants against decisions of the Court of Appeal (Rubin v Eurofinance SA [2010] EWCA Civ 895, [2011] Ch. 133 and New Cap Reinsurance Corp Ltd (In Liquidation) v Grant [2011] EWCA Civ 971, [2012] 2 W.L.R. 1095), the Supreme Court held that the approach in Rubin did not represent an incremental development of existing principles but was "a radical departure from substantially settled law" and that change to the law of this nature was more suitable for legislation than judicial innovation. The Supreme Court also rejected the argument that judgments in foreign (non UK) avoidance proceedings could be enforced in England pursuant to provisions of the Cross-border Insolvency Regulations 2006 or section 426 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

Although allowing the appeal in Rubin v Eurofinance, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in New Cap Reinsurance Corporation v. AE Grant. This was on the basis of a finding that the New Cap Appellants had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Australian Court because they had filed a proof of debt in the Australian bankruptcy, participated in creditors' meetings and voted on a scheme of arrangement, the Supreme Court holding that a party "should not be allowed to benefit from the insolvency proceeding without the burden of complying with the orders made in that proceeding".

Member of Chambers: Blair Leahy for the second appellant (instructed by Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP


Share