Sabbagh v Khoury & Ors [2014] EWHC 3233 (Comm) (10 October 2014)

Sabbagh v Khoury & Ors [2014] EWHC 3233 (Comm) (10 October 2014)

The court held that the English court does not have jurisdiction to try the claims against the foreign defendants because there is no serious issue to be tried against the anchor defendant (Wael) in England, the claims are more closely connected to Lebanon, and the disputes fall within the scope of arbitration agreements in the company articles. The claims are stayed or dismissed for want of jurisdiction and/or on the basis of a binding arbitration agreement and forum non conveniens.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 3233 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Sana Hassib Sabbagh; 1st Defendant: Wael Said Khoury; 2nd Defendant: Said Toufic Khoury; 3rd Defendant: Samer Said Khoury; 4th Defendant: Toufic Said Khoury; 5th Defendant: Samir Hassib Sabbagh; 6th Defendant: Suheil Hassib Sabbagh; 7th Defendant: Wahbe Abdallah Tamari; 8th Defendant: Consolidated Contractors Group SAL (Holding Company); 9th Defendant: Consolidated Contractors International Company (SAL) (Offshore); 10th Defendant: Hassib Holding SAL
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim (jurisdictional Challenge) / Interlocutory Judgment on Jurisdiction and Stay Applications
Outcome
Claims stayed or dismissed for want of jurisdiction and/or on basis of arbitration agreement and forum non conveniens.
Legal Topics
Jurisdictional Challenge, Forum Non Conveniens, Arbitration Stay, Shareholder Disputes, Conspiracy, Asset Misappropriation, Succession and Inheritance, Company Articles Interpretation
Private International Law Commercial Law Succession Law Company Law Jurisdictional Challenge Forum Non Conveniens Arbitration Stay Shareholder Disputes +4 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 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sana Hassib Sabbagh

Claimant

Wael Said Khoury

1st Defendant

Said Toufic Khoury

2nd Defendant

Samer Said Khoury

3rd Defendant

Toufic Said Khoury

4th Defendant

Samir Hassib Sabbagh

5th Defendant

Suheil Hassib Sabbagh

6th Defendant

Wahbe Abdallah Tamari

7th Defendant

Consolidated Contractors Group SAL (Holding Company)

8th Defendant

Consolidated Contractors International Company (SAL) (Offshore)

9th Defendant

Hassib Holding SAL

10th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim (jurisdictional Challenge) / Interlocutory Judgment on Jurisdiction and Stay Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction over the claims against the defendants under the Brussels Regulation and CPR 6.37
  2. 2 Whether the claims fall within the scope of the Brussels Regulation or are excluded as succession or company organ matters
  3. 3 Whether the claims are subject to a binding arbitration agreement requiring a stay under s.9 Arbitration Act 1996

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the English court does not have jurisdiction to try the claims against the foreign defendants because there is no serious issue to be tried against the anchor defendant (Wael) in England, the claims are more closely connected to Lebanon, and the disputes fall within the scope of arbitration agreements in the company articles. The claims are stayed or dismissed for want of jurisdiction and/or on the basis of a binding arbitration agreement and forum non conveniens.

Court Disposition

Claims stayed or dismissed for want of jurisdiction and/or on basis of arbitration agreement and forum non conveniens.

Orders

  • Proceedings against all defendants stayed or dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and/or in favour of arbitration.
  • No defences required to be served pending outcome of jurisdictional challenge.