Lornamead Acquisitions Ltd v Kaupthing Bank HF [2011] EWHC 2611 (Comm) (18 October 2011)

Lornamead Acquisitions Ltd v Kaupthing Bank HF [2011] EWHC 2611 (Comm) (18 October 2011)

The court followed the decision in Rawlinson, holding that Kaupthing was not subject to an EEA insolvency measure in May 2010 when the English proceedings were issued. Therefore, Regulation 5(1) of the 2004 Regulations did not require a stay or strike out. The English court had jurisdiction under the exclusive...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 2611 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Lornamead Acquisitions Limited; Defendant/applicant: Kaupthing Bank HF
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim (jurisdictional Challenge) / Application to Strike Out or Stay Proceedings; Judgment on Jurisdiction
Outcome
Application to strike out or stay proceedings dismissed
Legal Topics
Cross Border Insolvency, Jurisdiction Clauses, Recognition of Foreign Insolvency Proceedings, Interpretation of EU Directives, Forum Non Conveniens
Insolvency Law Banking Law Private International Law Cross Border Insolvency Jurisdiction Clauses Recognition of Foreign Insolvency Proceedings Interpretation of EU Directives Forum Non Conveniens

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lornamead Acquisitions Limited

Claimant/respondent

Kaupthing Bank HF

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim (jurisdictional Challenge) / Application to Strike Out or Stay Proceedings; Judgment on Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Kaupthing was subject to an EEA insolvency measure in May 2010 for the purposes of the 2004 Regulations and Directive 2001/24/EC
  2. 2 Whether Regulation 5(1) of the 2004 Regulations required a stay or strike out of the English proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the English or Icelandic courts had exclusive jurisdiction under the Lugano Convention and the relevant contractual agreements

Ratio Decidendi

The court followed the decision in Rawlinson, holding that Kaupthing was not subject to an EEA insolvency measure in May 2010 when the English proceedings were issued. Therefore, Regulation 5(1) of the 2004 Regulations did not require a stay or strike out. The English court had jurisdiction under the exclusive jurisdiction clauses in the main finance documents, and there was no basis for a stay on forum non conveniens or case management grounds.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out or stay proceedings dismissed

Orders

  • Kaupthing's application to strike out or stay the English proceedings is dismissed.
  • The English proceedings may continue.