Isis Investments Ltd v Oscatello Investments Ltd & Ors

Isis Investments Ltd v Oscatello Investments Ltd & Ors

Circumstances are not sufficiently rare and compelling to warrant a stay of Action 599; all relevant issues can be determined in English proceedings, amendments are permissible, and exclusive jurisdiction clause favours English courts. Mr Adalsteinsson is permitted to bring counterclaims within Action 599 under CPR Part 20.

Parties
Claimant: Isis Investments Limited; First Defendant: Oscatello Investments Limited; Second Defendant: Kaupthing HF; Third Defendant (representative Party for Investors): Elfar Adalsteinsson; Fourth Defendant: Eliza Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil / Case Management Conference
Outcome
Stay application refused; permission granted for Mr Adalsteinsson to bring counterclaims.
Legal Topics
Case Management Stay, Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause, Cross Border Insolvency, Fiduciary Duty, Amendment of Pleadings, Limitation, Credit Institutions (reorganisation and Winding Up) Regulations 2004, Trust Claims, Section 423 Insolvency Act 1986
Insolvency Company Law Trusts Contract Case Management Stay Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause Cross Border Insolvency Fiduciary Duty +5 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Isis Investments Limited

Claimant

Oscatello Investments Limited

First Defendant

Kaupthing HF

Second Defendant

Elfar Adalsteinsson

Third Defendant (representative Party for Investors)

Eliza Limited

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Case Management Conference

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a case management stay should be granted in Action 599 pending Isle of Man proceedings
  2. 2 Whether amendments to Action 599 are permissible under insolvency and procedural rules
  3. 3 Whether Mr Adalsteinsson may bring counterclaims against co-defendants under CPR Part 20

Ratio Decidendi

Circumstances are not sufficiently rare and compelling to warrant a stay of Action 599; all relevant issues can be determined in English proceedings, amendments are permissible, and exclusive jurisdiction clause favours English courts. Mr Adalsteinsson is permitted to bring counterclaims within Action 599 under CPR Part 20.

Court Disposition

Stay application refused; permission granted for Mr Adalsteinsson to bring counterclaims.

Orders

  • Action 599 to proceed in English courts.
  • Mr Adalsteinsson granted permission to bring counterclaims against Isis, Oscatello, and Kaupthing.