Koza Ltd & Anor v Akcil & Ors

Koza Ltd & Anor v Akcil & Ors

The proceedings as a whole, so far as they relate to Koza Altin, are principally concerned with the validity of decisions of an organ of the company and therefore fall within Article 24(2) of the Recast Judgments Regulation. The presence of non-company law issues does not alter this principal concern. Koza Altin did not submit to the jurisdiction by counterclaiming, as its challenge was expressly reserved. The judge's decision to adjourn the strike out application was a proper case management decision and not wrong in principle.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Koza Limited; Claimant/respondent: Hamdi Akin Ipek; Defendant/appellant: Mustafa Akcil; Defendant/appellant: Hayrullah Dağistan; Defendant/appellant: Mahmut Hikmet Keleş; Defendant/appellant: Hamza Yanik; Defendant/appellant: Arif Yalcin; Defendant/appellant: Koza Altin İşletmeleri AS
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision on Jurisdiction and Case Management
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Exclusive Jurisdiction Under EU Regulation, Authority to Act for Company, Recognition of Foreign Appointments, Company Meetings and Resolutions
Company Law Civil Procedure Private International Law Jurisdiction Exclusive Jurisdiction Under EU Regulation Authority to Act for Company Recognition of Foreign Appointments Company Meetings and Resolutions

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Koza Limited

Claimant/respondent

Hamdi Akin Ipek

Claimant/respondent

Mustafa Akcil

Defendant/appellant

Hayrullah Dağistan

Defendant/appellant

Mahmut Hikmet Keleş

Defendant/appellant

Hamza Yanik

Defendant/appellant

Arif Yalcin

Defendant/appellant

Koza Altin İşletmeleri AS

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision on Jurisdiction and Case Management

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proceedings fall within Article 24(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Recast Judgments Regulation) on exclusive jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether Koza Altin submitted to the jurisdiction by counterclaiming
  3. 3 Whether the judge's refusal to dismiss the strike out application was wrong

Ratio Decidendi

The proceedings as a whole, so far as they relate to Koza Altin, are principally concerned with the validity of decisions of an organ of the company and therefore fall within Article 24(2) of the Recast Judgments Regulation. The presence of non-company law issues does not alter this principal concern. Koza Altin did not submit to the jurisdiction by counterclaiming, as its challenge was expressly reserved. The judge's decision to adjourn the strike out application was a proper case management decision and not wrong in principle.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted
  • Appeal dismissed on all grounds