Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings v Unitech Ltd & Ors

Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings v Unitech Ltd & Ors

The English court has no jurisdiction to make a freezing order against the Chabra defendants (subsidiaries of the award debtor who are not parties to the arbitration and have no presence or assets in England) because neither CPR 62.5(1)(c) nor PD 6B para 3.1(3) permit service out of the jurisdiction on such non-parties, and for the Cypriot defendants, there is no 'real connecting link' as required by European law.

Parties
Claimant: Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings; 1st Defendant: Unitech Limited; 2nd Defendant: Burley Holdings Limited; 3rd Defendant: Arsanovia Limited; 4th Defendant: Unitech Residential Resorts Limited (URRL); 5th Defendant: Nectrus Limited; 6th Defendant: Nuwell Limited; 7th Defendant: Technosolid Limited; 8th Defendant: Unitech Overseas Limited (UOL)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application (jurisdictional Challenge) / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Order for Service Out of Jurisdiction
Outcome
Application to set aside order for service out of jurisdiction granted; court declines jurisdiction over Chabra defendants.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Freezing Orders, Enforcement of Arbitration Awards, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Chabra Jurisdiction
Civil Procedure Arbitration Private International Law Jurisdiction Freezing Orders Enforcement of Arbitration Awards Service Out of Jurisdiction Chabra 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 5 Authorities cited 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings

Claimant

Unitech Limited

1st Defendant

Burley Holdings Limited

2nd Defendant

Arsanovia Limited

3rd Defendant

Unitech Residential Resorts Limited (URRL)

4th Defendant

Nectrus Limited

5th Defendant

Nuwell Limited

6th Defendant

Technosolid Limited

7th Defendant

Unitech Overseas Limited (UOL)

8th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application (jurisdictional Challenge) / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Order for Service Out of Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction to make a freezing order in aid of enforcement of a London arbitration award against subsidiaries of the award debtor who are not parties to the arbitration and have no presence or assets within the jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether CPR 62.5(1)(c) or PD 6B para 3.1(3) permit service out of the jurisdiction on such non-party subsidiaries (Chabra defendants)
  3. 3 Whether there is a 'real connecting link' for the purposes of the Brussels Regulation for Cypriot defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The English court has no jurisdiction to make a freezing order against the Chabra defendants (subsidiaries of the award debtor who are not parties to the arbitration and have no presence or assets in England) because neither CPR 62.5(1)(c) nor PD 6B para 3.1(3) permit service out of the jurisdiction on such non-parties, and for the Cypriot defendants, there is no 'real connecting link' as required by European law.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside order for service out of jurisdiction granted; court declines jurisdiction over Chabra defendants.

Orders

  • Order for service out of the jurisdiction on the Chabra defendants set aside.
  • Court declines jurisdiction over the Chabra defendants.