Antonio Gramsci Shipping Corp & Ors v Recoletos Ltd & Ors

Antonio Gramsci Shipping Corp & Ors v Recoletos Ltd & Ors

The English court does not have jurisdiction over Mr. Lembergs because the Claimants cannot pierce the corporate veil to treat him as party to the charterparties or jurisdiction clause, and there is no evidence of consensus or submission to jurisdiction under Articles 23 or 24 of the Brussels Regulation.

Parties
Claimants: Antonio Gramsci Shipping Corporation and others; Defendants: Recoletos Limited and others including Aviars Lembergs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Application Challenging Jurisdiction / Ruling on Jurisdictional Challenge
Outcome
Jurisdictional challenge upheld; court lacks jurisdiction over Mr. Lembergs.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Corporate Veil Piercing, Brussels Regulation, Submission to Jurisdiction
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Jurisdiction Corporate Veil Piercing Brussels Regulation Submission to Jurisdiction

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

Antonio Gramsci Shipping Corporation and others

Claimants

Recoletos Limited and others including Aviars Lembergs

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Application Challenging Jurisdiction / Ruling on Jurisdictional Challenge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction over Mr. Lembergs under Articles 23 and 24 of the Brussels Regulation
  2. 2 Whether the corporate veil can be pierced to treat Mr. Lembergs as party to the charterparties and jurisdiction clause
  3. 3 Whether Mr. Lembergs submitted to jurisdiction by his conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The English court does not have jurisdiction over Mr. Lembergs because the Claimants cannot pierce the corporate veil to treat him as party to the charterparties or jurisdiction clause, and there is no evidence of consensus or submission to jurisdiction under Articles 23 or 24 of the Brussels Regulation.

Court Disposition

Jurisdictional challenge upheld; court lacks jurisdiction over Mr. Lembergs.

Orders

  • The court does not have jurisdiction over Mr. Lembergs pursuant to either Article 23 or Article 24 of the Brussels Regulation.