JEB Recoveries LLP v Binstock

JEB Recoveries LLP v Binstock

The court found that Mr Binstock is not domiciled in England and Wales but is domiciled in a member state (France or Spain). Only the third claim, relating to services performed in London, has sufficient connection to the jurisdiction for the English court to entertain it. The first, second, and fourth claims lack such connection and are not justiciable in this court.

Parties
Claimant / Respondent: JEB Recoveries LLP; Defendant / Applicant: Judah Eleazar Binstock
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil (contract) / Interlocutory Application on Jurisdiction
Outcome
Jurisdiction upheld only for the third claim; first, second, and fourth claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Domicile, Brussels Convention, Provision of Services, Strike Out Applications
Civil Procedure Contract Law Private International Law Jurisdiction Domicile Brussels Convention Provision of Services Strike Out Applications

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JEB Recoveries LLP

Claimant / Respondent

Judah Eleazar Binstock

Defendant / Applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil (contract) / Interlocutory Application on Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction over the claims against Mr Binstock under the Brussels Convention
  2. 2 Whether Mr Binstock is domiciled in England and Wales or another member state
  3. 3 Whether the claims relate to services performed within the jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Mr Binstock is not domiciled in England and Wales but is domiciled in a member state (France or Spain). Only the third claim, relating to services performed in London, has sufficient connection to the jurisdiction for the English court to entertain it. The first, second, and fourth claims lack such connection and are not justiciable in this court.

Court Disposition

Jurisdiction upheld only for the third claim; first, second, and fourth claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Orders

  • First, second, and fourth claims struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
  • Third claim may proceed in this jurisdiction.