Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank PJSC v Shetty & Ors [2022] EWHC 1020 (Comm) (01 April 2022)

Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank PJSC v Shetty & Ors [2022] EWHC 1020 (Comm) (01 April 2022)

The court held that Abu Dhabi is the clearly more appropriate forum for the dispute, given the governing law (UAE law), the habitual residence of the parties, and the centre of gravity of the dispute. Service on the first defendant was valid under section 1140 Companies Act 2006. The claims against the second to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 1020 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank PJSC; First Defendant: Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty; Second Defendant: Khaleefa Butti Omair Yousif Almuhairi; Third Defendant: Saeed Mohamed Butti Mohamed Alqebaisi; Fourth Defendant: Prasanth Manghat; Fifth Defendant: Suresh Kumar Vadakka Kootala; Sixth Defendant: Prashanth Shenoy
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Proceedings / Jurisdiction Challenge, Stay Application, Costs and Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Proceedings stayed as against first to fourth defendants; worldwide freezing order to be discharged with short extension; costs awarded to defendants as specified; permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Forum Non Conveniens, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Worldwide Freezing Order, Costs, Governing Law
Private International Law Civil Procedure Commercial Law Jurisdiction Forum Non Conveniens Service Out of Jurisdiction Worldwide Freezing Order Costs +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank PJSC

Claimant

Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty

First Defendant

Khaleefa Butti Omair Yousif Almuhairi

Second Defendant

Saeed Mohamed Butti Mohamed Alqebaisi

Third Defendant

Prasanth Manghat

Fourth Defendant

Suresh Kumar Vadakka Kootala

Fifth Defendant

Prashanth Shenoy

Sixth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Proceedings / Jurisdiction Challenge, Stay Application, Costs and Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether England is the appropriate forum for the dispute
  2. 2 Whether service on the first defendant was valid under section 1140 Companies Act 2006
  3. 3 Whether claims against second to fourth defendants pass through the necessary and proper gateway and tort gateway

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Abu Dhabi is the clearly more appropriate forum for the dispute, given the governing law (UAE law), the habitual residence of the parties, and the centre of gravity of the dispute. Service on the first defendant was valid under section 1140 Companies Act 2006. The claims against the second to fourth defendants passed through the necessary and proper gateway and, to a limited extent, the tort gateway. However, the proceedings should be stayed as against the first to fourth defendants, with liberty to apply for further relief, rather than dismissed outright. The worldwide freezing order should be discharged, subject to a short extension to allow for any application for...

Court Disposition

Proceedings stayed as against first to fourth defendants; worldwide freezing order to be discharged with short extension; costs awarded to defendants as specified; permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Proceedings stayed generally as against first to fourth defendants with liberty to apply for further relief as per draft order.
  • Worldwide freezing order to be discharged at 4:30 p.m. on 29 April 2022 unless otherwise ordered by the Court of Appeal.