Linsen International Ltd & Ors v Humpuss Transportasi Kimia [2011] EWCA Civ 1042 (11 August 2011)

Linsen International Ltd & Ors v Humpuss Transportasi Kimia [2011] EWCA Civ 1042 (11 August 2011)

The requirements for piercing the corporate veil were not met, and the Chabra jurisdiction did not extend to the additional defendants as the assets were not within the jurisdiction and the third defendant was not a party to the contract. Service out of the jurisdiction was not permissible under the cited provisions as there were no assets in England to enforce against.

Citation
[2011] EWCA Civ 1042
Parties
Claimants/applicants: Linsen International Limited and Others; Defendants/respondents: Humpuss Transportasi Kimia
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal and Renewal of Injunctions
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Piercing the Corporate Veil, Jurisdiction for Service Out, Enforcement of Arbitral Awards
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Freezing Injunctions Piercing the Corporate Veil Jurisdiction for Service Out Enforcement of Arbitral Awards

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Linsen International Limited and Others

Claimants/applicants

Humpuss Transportasi Kimia

Defendants/respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal and Renewal of Injunctions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are entitled to renew freezing injunctions against additional defendants based on piercing the corporate veil or the Chabra jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether service out of the jurisdiction is permissible under Practice Direction 6B, paragraph 3.1(3), (6), or (10)

Ratio Decidendi

The requirements for piercing the corporate veil were not met, and the Chabra jurisdiction did not extend to the additional defendants as the assets were not within the jurisdiction and the third defendant was not a party to the contract. Service out of the jurisdiction was not permissible under the cited provisions as there were no assets in England to enforce against.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused
  • Injunctions granted by Judge Mackie not renewed