JEB Recoveries LLP v Binstock [2015] EWHC 1168 (Ch) (18 March 2015)

JEB Recoveries LLP v Binstock [2015] EWHC 1168 (Ch) (18 March 2015)

The court found Mr Binstock is domiciled in a member state (Spain or France), not England and Wales, and only the third claim had sufficient connection to England for jurisdiction under Article 5 of the Brussels Convention.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 1168 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant / Respondent: JEB Recoveries LLP; Defendant / Applicant: Judah Eleazar Binstock
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim (contract/services) / Jurisdiction Challenge (preliminary Hearing)
Outcome
Jurisdiction challenge partially upheld; only third claim may proceed in England.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Domicile, Brussels Convention, Provision of Services, Champerty
Civil Procedure Contract Law Private International Law Jurisdiction Domicile Brussels Convention Provision of Services Champerty

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JEB Recoveries LLP

Claimant / Respondent

Judah Eleazar Binstock

Defendant / Applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim (contract/services) / Jurisdiction Challenge (preliminary Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether English courts have jurisdiction over the claims against Mr Binstock
  2. 2 Whether any claims should be struck out for lack of jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether the claims are champertous

Ratio Decidendi

The court found Mr Binstock is domiciled in a member state (Spain or France), not England and Wales, and only the third claim had sufficient connection to England for jurisdiction under Article 5 of the Brussels Convention.

Court Disposition

Jurisdiction challenge partially upheld; only third claim may proceed in England.

Orders

  • First, second, and fourth claims struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
  • Third claim permitted to proceed in English courts.