CA Indosuez (Switzerland) SA v Afriquia Gaz SA & Anor

CA Indosuez (Switzerland) SA v Afriquia Gaz SA & Anor

Permission was not required to serve the Part 20 Claim Form on UBS out of the jurisdiction because CPR 6.33(3) as amended was wide enough to cover claims engaging jurisdiction under the Lugano Convention issued before the end of the Brexit implementation period. There was sufficient connection between the main and Part 20 claims at the time of issue to satisfy Article 6(2) of the Lugano Convention, and the settlement of the main claim did not retrospectively remove jurisdiction. The Part 20 claim against UBS should not be struck out as there are factual issues to be tried.

Parties
Claimant: CA Indosuez (Switzerland) SA; Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Afriquia Gaz SA; Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Maghreb Gaz SA; Part 20 Defendant: Gulf Petrochem FZC; Part 20 Defendant: UBS Switzerland AG
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim With Part 20 Proceedings / Interlocutory Application—jurisdiction, Service Out, and Strike Out
Outcome
Application by UBS to set aside service, contest jurisdiction, and strike out Part 20 claim dismissed. Part 20 claim to proceed to trial.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Lugano Convention, Civil Procedure Rules, Assignment of Debt, Unjust Enrichment
Civil Procedure Private International Law Commercial Law Jurisdiction Service Out of Jurisdiction Lugano Convention Civil Procedure Rules Assignment of Debt +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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CA Indosuez (Switzerland) SA

Claimant

Afriquia Gaz SA

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Maghreb Gaz SA

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Gulf Petrochem FZC

Part 20 Defendant

UBS Switzerland AG

Part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim With Part 20 Proceedings / Interlocutory Application—jurisdiction, Service Out, and Strike Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission was required to serve the Part 20 Claim Form on UBS Switzerland AG out of the jurisdiction under the Lugano Convention after Brexit transition period
  2. 2 Whether the English court has and should retain jurisdiction over UBS under Article 6(2) of the Lugano Convention
  3. 3 Whether the Part 20 claim against UBS should be struck out

Ratio Decidendi

Permission was not required to serve the Part 20 Claim Form on UBS out of the jurisdiction because CPR 6.33(3) as amended was wide enough to cover claims engaging jurisdiction under the Lugano Convention issued before the end of the Brexit implementation period. There was sufficient connection between the main and Part 20 claims at the time of issue to satisfy Article 6(2) of the Lugano Convention, and the settlement of the main claim did not retrospectively remove jurisdiction. The Part 20 claim against UBS should not be struck out as there are factual issues to be tried.

Court Disposition

Application by UBS to set aside service, contest jurisdiction, and strike out Part 20 claim dismissed. Part 20 claim to proceed to trial.

Orders

  • Court retains jurisdiction over UBS Switzerland AG under Article 6(2) of the Lugano Convention.
  • Permission to serve out of the jurisdiction was not required.