The Libyan Investment Authority v J.P. Morgan Markets Ltd & Ors (Rev 1) [2019] EWHC 1452 (Comm) (10 June 2019)

The Libyan Investment Authority v J.P. Morgan Markets Ltd & Ors (Rev 1) [2019] EWHC 1452 (Comm) (10 June 2019)

The claims against Mr Giahmi and Lands are time-barred under English law as the Claimant could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered the relevant facts more than six years before issuing the claim. The Claimant failed to address the limitation issue and Section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 in its without...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 1452 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: The Libyan Investment Authority; First Defendant: JP Morgan Chase & Co; Second Defendant: J. P. Morgan Markets Limited; Third Defendant: Walid Mohamed Ali Al-Giahmi; Fourth Defendant: Lands Company Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim / Jurisdictional Challenge and Application to Set Aside Service/out of Jurisdiction
Outcome
Claims against the Third and Fourth Defendants struck out; service out of jurisdiction set aside.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Limitation of Actions, Fraud, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Full and Frank Disclosure, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Jurisdiction Limitation of Actions Fraud Service Out of Jurisdiction Full and Frank Disclosure Abuse of Process

Source-derived case record

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 6 Authorities cited 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Libyan Investment Authority

Claimant

JP Morgan Chase & Co

First Defendant

J. P. Morgan Markets Limited

Second Defendant

Walid Mohamed Ali Al-Giahmi

Third Defendant

Lands Company Limited

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim / Jurisdictional Challenge and Application to Set Aside Service/out of Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claims against the Third and Fourth Defendants are time-barred under English law
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant failed to give full and frank disclosure on the without notice application for service out
  3. 3 Whether the claims disclose a reasonable cause of action

Ratio Decidendi

The claims against Mr Giahmi and Lands are time-barred under English law as the Claimant could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered the relevant facts more than six years before issuing the claim. The Claimant failed to address the limitation issue and Section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 in its without notice application, breaching its duty of full and frank disclosure. Accordingly, service out of the jurisdiction is set aside and the claims against the Third and Fourth Defendants are struck out.

Court Disposition

Claims against the Third and Fourth Defendants struck out; service out of jurisdiction set aside.

Orders

  • Service of the claim form on the Third and Fourth Defendants is set aside.
  • The claims against the Third and Fourth Defendants are struck out.