Manek & Ors v IIFL Wealth (UK) Ltd & Ors

Manek & Ors v IIFL Wealth (UK) Ltd & Ors

The Court of Appeal held that substantial and efficacious acts in furtherance of the alleged fraud were committed within the jurisdiction at meetings in London, particularly on 8/9 August 2015, where key misrepresentations were made. These acts satisfied the requirements of the tort gateway under CPR 6BPD 3.1(9)(b), entitling the appellants to serve the claim out of the jurisdiction.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Prashant Hasmukh Manek; Claimant/appellant: Sanjay Chandi; Claimant/appellant: EAGM Ventures (India) Private Limited; 1st Defendant: IIFL Wealth (UK) Limited; Respondent/defendant: Ramu Ramasamy; Respondent/defendant: Palaniyapan Ramasamy; 4th Defendant: Amit Shah
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Jurisdiction
Outcome
Appeal allowed on the tort gateway issue; matter to be relisted for argument on remaining issues.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Tort Gateway, Deceit, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Forum Conveniens, Arbitration Clause
Civil Procedure Private International Law Commercial Law Jurisdiction Tort Gateway Deceit Service Out of Jurisdiction Forum Conveniens +1 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prashant Hasmukh Manek

Claimant/appellant

Sanjay Chandi

Claimant/appellant

EAGM Ventures (India) Private Limited

Claimant/appellant

IIFL Wealth (UK) Limited

1st Defendant

Ramu Ramasamy

Respondent/defendant

Palaniyapan Ramasamy

Respondent/defendant

Amit Shah

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether substantial and efficacious acts in furtherance of the alleged fraud occurred within the jurisdiction for the purposes of the tort gateway under CPR 6BPD 3.1(9)(b)
  2. 2 Whether the Commercial Court has jurisdiction over the respondents under the tort gateway
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in his assessment of the significance of acts committed within the jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that substantial and efficacious acts in furtherance of the alleged fraud were committed within the jurisdiction at meetings in London, particularly on 8/9 August 2015, where key misrepresentations were made. These acts satisfied the requirements of the tort gateway under CPR 6BPD 3.1(9)(b), entitling the appellants to serve the claim out of the jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed on the tort gateway issue; matter to be relisted for argument on remaining issues.

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed in respect of the tort gateway under CPR 6BPD 3.1(9)(b).
  • The case is to be relisted before the same constitution for argument on the remaining issues (arbitration clause, forum conveniens, non-disclosure).