Trumann Investment Group Ltd v Societe Generale SA & Ors [2004] EWHC 1769 (Ch) (27 July 2004)

Trumann Investment Group Ltd v Societe Generale SA & Ors [2004] EWHC 1769 (Ch) (27 July 2004)

The Court of Appeal authority equates CPR 6.20(3) with CPR 19.2(2), permitting joinder and service out of jurisdiction where the party would be a proper party if within jurisdiction. All claims against CCL arise from common facts and transactions with existing parties, making CCL a necessary and proper party. England is the proper forum given the advanced state of proceedings and prior submissions to jurisdiction. The application to set aside service and challenge jurisdiction is dismissed.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 1769 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Trumann Investment Group Limited; First Defendant: Societe Generale SA; Second Defendant: Cyport Communications International Limited; Third Defendant: Hilmi Kansu; Fourth Defendant: Canan Kansu; Fifth Defendant: Cyport Communications Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside Service and Challenge Jurisdiction / Post Hearing Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Joinder of Parties, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Forum Conveniens, Fiduciary Duties, Tracing Claims
Civil Procedure Company Law Joinder of Parties Service Out of Jurisdiction Forum Conveniens Fiduciary Duties Tracing Claims

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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trumann Investment Group Limited

Claimant

Societe Generale SA

First Defendant

Cyport Communications International Limited

Second Defendant

Hilmi Kansu

Third Defendant

Canan Kansu

Fourth Defendant

Cyport Communications Limited

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Set Aside Service and Challenge Jurisdiction / Post Hearing Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether service out of jurisdiction on Cyport Communications Limited (CCL) should be set aside
  2. 2 Whether English courts have jurisdiction over claims against CCL
  3. 3 Whether CCL is a necessary or proper party under CPR 6.20(3) and CPR 19.2(2)

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal authority equates CPR 6.20(3) with CPR 19.2(2), permitting joinder and service out of jurisdiction where the party would be a proper party if within jurisdiction. All claims against CCL arise from common facts and transactions with existing parties, making CCL a necessary and proper party. England is the proper forum given the advanced state of proceedings and prior submissions to jurisdiction. The application to set aside service and challenge jurisdiction is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application by Fifth Defendant to set aside service and challenge jurisdiction is dismissed
  • Consequential orders to be determined at a later date