Zufi Alexander v Century Financial Brokers LLC & Ors

Zufi Alexander v Century Financial Brokers LLC & Ors

The court found that there is a serious issue to be tried under section 423 Insolvency Act 1986, that CFC is a necessary and proper party, that there is a sufficient connection with England, and that England is clearly and distinctly the appropriate forum. The existence of broad English law and jurisdiction clauses, the involvement of an English company (CMC), and the risk of fragmentation if service were set aside were decisive. The Application to set aside service and challenge jurisdiction was dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: Zufi Alexander; First Defendant: Century Financial Brokers LLC; Second Defendant: Century Financial Consultancy LLC; Third Defendant: CMC Markets UK PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Commercial/chancery / Ruling on Jurisdictional Challenge (cpr 11) by Second Defendant
Outcome
Application dismissed. English court retains jurisdiction over CFC.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Transactions at an Undervalue, Section 423 Insolvency Act 1986, Forum Non Conveniens
Insolvency Civil Procedure Conflict of Laws Jurisdiction Service Out of Jurisdiction Transactions at an Undervalue Section 423 Insolvency Act 1986 Forum Non Conveniens

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 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zufi Alexander

Claimant

Century Financial Brokers LLC

First Defendant

Century Financial Consultancy LLC

Second Defendant

CMC Markets UK PLC

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Commercial/chancery / Ruling on Jurisdictional Challenge (cpr 11) by Second Defendant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction over the Second Defendant (CFC) under CPR 11 and Practice Direction 6B
  2. 2 Whether there is a serious issue to be tried under section 423 Insolvency Act 1986
  3. 3 Whether there is a sufficient connection with England for the purposes of section 423 and PD 6B 3.1(20)

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there is a serious issue to be tried under section 423 Insolvency Act 1986, that CFC is a necessary and proper party, that there is a sufficient connection with England, and that England is clearly and distinctly the appropriate forum. The existence of broad English law and jurisdiction clauses, the involvement of an English company (CMC), and the risk of fragmentation if service were set aside were decisive. The Application to set aside service and challenge jurisdiction was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. English court retains jurisdiction over CFC.

Orders

  • Permission to serve out of the jurisdiction on CFC stands.
  • Service of the claim form on CFC is not set aside.