Dubai Islamic Bank PJSC v PSI Energy Holding Company BSC & Ors (Rev 2) [2011] EWHC 1019 (Comm) (19 April 2011)

Dubai Islamic Bank PJSC v PSI Energy Holding Company BSC & Ors (Rev 2) [2011] EWHC 1019 (Comm) (19 April 2011)

The institution of proceedings in Bahrain by the Bank did not amount to a repudiatory breach of the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in the RSA because there was an alternative explanation (asset protection) and no clear and unequivocal intention to abandon the clause. The exclusive jurisdiction clause remains binding. The risk of dissipation justifies the continuation of the freezing injunction. The English court has jurisdiction and is the proper forum.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 1019 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Dubai Islamic Bank PJSC; First Defendant: PSI Energy Holding Company BSC; Second Defendant: Ryan Cornelius; Third Defendant: Charles Ridley; Fourth Defendant: Eren Nil; Fifth Defendant: CCH (Europe) GmbH
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim (freezing Injunction, Jurisdiction Challenge) / Interlocutory Applications: Discharge/variation of Freezing Order and Challenge to Jurisdiction
Outcome
Jurisdiction challenge dismissed; freezing injunction continued
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Jurisdiction Agreements, Repudiatory Breach, Estoppel, Forum Conveniens, Asset Dissipation, Enforcement of Security, Fraud
Commercial Law Civil Procedure Conflict of Laws Freezing Injunctions Jurisdiction Agreements Repudiatory Breach Estoppel Forum Conveniens +3 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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dubai Islamic Bank PJSC

Claimant

PSI Energy Holding Company BSC

First Defendant

Ryan Cornelius

Second Defendant

Charles Ridley

Third Defendant

Eren Nil

Fourth Defendant

CCH (Europe) GmbH

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim (freezing Injunction, Jurisdiction Challenge) / Interlocutory Applications: Discharge/variation of Freezing Order and Challenge to Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction in light of exclusive jurisdiction clause in the RSA
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's commencement of proceedings in Bahrain was a repudiatory breach of the jurisdiction agreement
  3. 3 Whether the freezing injunction should be discharged or continued

Ratio Decidendi

The institution of proceedings in Bahrain by the Bank did not amount to a repudiatory breach of the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in the RSA because there was an alternative explanation (asset protection) and no clear and unequivocal intention to abandon the clause. The exclusive jurisdiction clause remains binding. The risk of dissipation justifies the continuation of the freezing injunction. The English court has jurisdiction and is the proper forum.

Court Disposition

Jurisdiction challenge dismissed; freezing injunction continued

Orders

  • The applications to discharge or set aside the freezing injunction are dismissed.
  • The challenge to the jurisdiction of the English court is dismissed.