CA Indosuez (Switzerland) SA & Anor v Afriquia Gaz SA & Anor [2022] EWHC 2871 (Comm) (11 November 2022)

CA Indosuez (Switzerland) SA & Anor v Afriquia Gaz SA & Anor [2022] EWHC 2871 (Comm) (11 November 2022)

The court held that permission was not required to serve the Part 20 claim form on UBS out of the jurisdiction because CPR 6.33(3) as amended was sufficiently wide to cover claims engaging Lugano Convention jurisdiction at the time of issue. There was sufficient connection between the main and Part 20 claims at the time of issue to satisfy Article 6(2) of the Lugano Convention, and the subsequent settlement of the main claim did not retrospectively remove jurisdiction. The Part 20 claim against UBS raised triable issues under Swiss law and should not be struck out.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 2871 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: CA Indosuez (Switzerland) SA; Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Afriquia Gaz SA; Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Maghreb Gaz SA; Part 20 Defendant: Gulf Petrochem FZC; Part 20 Defendant: UBS Switzerland AG
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim With Part 20 (third Party) Proceedings / Interlocutory Judgment on Jurisdiction, Service Out of Jurisdiction, and Strike Out Application
Outcome
Application by UBS to set aside service and strike out the Part 20 claim dismissed; Part 20 claim to proceed to trial.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Lugano Convention, Unjust Enrichment, Assignment of Debt, Constructive Trust, Relief From Sanctions
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Private International Law Jurisdiction Service Out of Jurisdiction Lugano Convention Unjust Enrichment Assignment of Debt +2 more

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CA Indosuez (Switzerland) SA

Claimant

Afriquia Gaz SA

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Maghreb Gaz SA

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Gulf Petrochem FZC

Part 20 Defendant

UBS Switzerland AG

Part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim With Part 20 (third Party) Proceedings / Interlocutory Judgment on Jurisdiction, Service Out of Jurisdiction, and Strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission was required to serve the Part 20 claim form on UBS Switzerland AG out of the jurisdiction after Brexit implementation period
  2. 2 Whether the English court has and should retain jurisdiction over UBS under Article 6(2) of the Lugano Convention
  3. 3 Whether the Part 20 claim against UBS should be struck out

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that permission was not required to serve the Part 20 claim form on UBS out of the jurisdiction because CPR 6.33(3) as amended was sufficiently wide to cover claims engaging Lugano Convention jurisdiction at the time of issue. There was sufficient connection between the main and Part 20 claims at the time of issue to satisfy Article 6(2) of the Lugano Convention, and the subsequent settlement of the main claim did not retrospectively remove jurisdiction. The Part 20 claim against UBS raised triable issues under Swiss law and should not be struck out.

Court Disposition

Application by UBS to set aside service and strike out the Part 20 claim dismissed; Part 20 claim to proceed to trial.

Orders

  • Court has and retains jurisdiction over UBS Switzerland AG under Article 6(2) of the Lugano Convention.
  • Permission was not required to serve the Part 20 claim form out of the jurisdiction on UBS.