Dennis v Tag Group Ltd & Ors [2017] EWHC 919 (Ch) (10 April 2017)

Dennis v Tag Group Ltd & Ors [2017] EWHC 919 (Ch) (10 April 2017)

TAG and BMH, by their conduct in the injunction proceedings—including requesting and receiving documents, providing undertakings, preparing and relying on witness statements on the merits, and failing to expressly reserve their right to contest jurisdiction before the court—unequivocally submitted to the jurisdiction of the English court or waived their right to contest jurisdiction. Alternatively, Article 24 of the Recast Brussels Regulation applies regardless of domicile, so permission to serve out was not required.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 919 (Ch)
Parties
Petitioner: Ronald Dennis; First Respondent: TAG Group Limited; Second Respondent: Bahrain Mumtalakat Holding Company B. S. C; Third Respondent: McLaren Technology Group Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Company Law Petition (unfair Prejudice) / Jurisdictional Challenge Following Interim Injunction Application
Outcome
Application granted; TAG and BMH treated as having submitted to the jurisdiction of the English court.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Submission to Jurisdiction, Unfair Prejudice, Injunctions, Service Out of Jurisdiction
Company Law Civil Procedure Private International Law Jurisdiction Submission to Jurisdiction Unfair Prejudice Injunctions Service Out of Jurisdiction

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

Parties

Ronald Dennis

Petitioner

TAG Group Limited

First Respondent

Bahrain Mumtalakat Holding Company B. S. C

Second Respondent

McLaren Technology Group Limited

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Company Law Petition (unfair Prejudice) / Jurisdictional Challenge Following Interim Injunction Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether foreign respondents (TAG and BMH) submitted to the jurisdiction of the English court by their conduct in resisting an injunction application
  2. 2 Whether the exclusive jurisdiction provisions of Article 24 of the Recast Brussels Regulation apply regardless of domicile

Ratio Decidendi

TAG and BMH, by their conduct in the injunction proceedings—including requesting and receiving documents, providing undertakings, preparing and relying on witness statements on the merits, and failing to expressly reserve their right to contest jurisdiction before the court—unequivocally submitted to the jurisdiction of the English court or waived their right to contest jurisdiction. Alternatively, Article 24 of the Recast Brussels Regulation applies regardless of domicile, so permission to serve out was not required.

Court Disposition

Application granted; TAG and BMH treated as having submitted to the jurisdiction of the English court.

Orders

  • TAG Group Limited and Bahrain Mumtalakat Holding Company B. S. C are deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the English court.
  • Permission to serve out was not required under Article 24 of the Recast Brussels Regulation.