JEB Recoveries LLP v Binstock

JEB Recoveries LLP v Binstock

JEB did not establish a good arguable case that England was the place of the main provision of services under the alleged contract, either by contract terms or actual performance. The evidence was insufficiently clear or detailed to support jurisdiction under Article 5 of the Regulation. The application to admit fresh evidence failed as it could have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at first instance. The issue of submission to jurisdiction by conduct was raised too late and could not be fairly adjudicated on appeal.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: JEB Recoveries LLP; Defendant/appellant: Judah Eleazar Binstock
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Jurisdiction and Champerty
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Champerty, Assignment of Claims, Submission to Jurisdiction, Provision of Services Under Contract
Civil Procedure Private International Law Jurisdiction Champerty Assignment of Claims Submission to Jurisdiction Provision of Services Under Contract

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JEB Recoveries LLP

Claimant/respondent

Judah Eleazar Binstock

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Jurisdiction and Champerty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court had jurisdiction over the third claim under Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001
  2. 2 Whether the assignment to JEB Recoveries LLP was champertous
  3. 3 Whether the defendant submitted to the jurisdiction by conduct

Ratio Decidendi

JEB did not establish a good arguable case that England was the place of the main provision of services under the alleged contract, either by contract terms or actual performance. The evidence was insufficiently clear or detailed to support jurisdiction under Article 5 of the Regulation. The application to admit fresh evidence failed as it could have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at first instance. The issue of submission to jurisdiction by conduct was raised too late and could not be fairly adjudicated on appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Declaration that the English courts do not have jurisdiction over the third claim under Article 5 of the Regulation
  • JEB refused permission to adduce fresh evidence on appeal