Chep Equipment Pooling BV v ITS Ltd & Ors [2022] EWHC 741 (Comm) (01 April 2022)

Chep Equipment Pooling BV v ITS Ltd & Ors [2022] EWHC 741 (Comm) (01 April 2022)

The English court has jurisdiction over ITS Limited under the necessary or proper party and tort gateways, as there is a good arguable case that the alleged conspiracy was formed and damage occurred in England, and England is the proper forum. The court has jurisdiction over ITS Estonia for claims not relating to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 741 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: CHEP Equipment Pooling BV; First Defendant: ITS Limited; Second Defendant: ITS Estonia OU; Third Defendant: Bart De Laender; Fourth Defendant: Klaus Mittelberger; Fifth Defendant: Marcelo Di Benedetto
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Jurisdiction Challenge / Interlocutory Application for Declarations as to Jurisdiction and to Set Aside Service
Outcome
ITS Limited's jurisdiction application dismissed; ITS Estonia's jurisdiction application allowed in part and dismissed in part.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Challenge, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Brussels Recast Regulation, Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses, Dishonest Assistance, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Fiduciary Duties
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Private International Law Jurisdiction Challenge Service Out of Jurisdiction Brussels Recast Regulation Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses Dishonest Assistance +2 more

Source-derived case record

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHEP Equipment Pooling BV

Claimant

ITS Limited

First Defendant

ITS Estonia OU

Second Defendant

Bart De Laender

Third Defendant

Klaus Mittelberger

Fourth Defendant

Marcelo Di Benedetto

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Jurisdiction Challenge / Interlocutory Application for Declarations as to Jurisdiction and to Set Aside Service

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction over ITS Limited (Isle of Man) under common law and CPR 6.36 gateways
  2. 2 Whether the English court has jurisdiction over ITS Estonia OU under the Brussels Recast Regulation and/or exclusive jurisdiction clause in the Audit Agreement
  3. 3 Whether claims against ITS Estonia relating to the Audit Agreement fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Belgian courts

Ratio Decidendi

The English court has jurisdiction over ITS Limited under the necessary or proper party and tort gateways, as there is a good arguable case that the alleged conspiracy was formed and damage occurred in England, and England is the proper forum. The court has jurisdiction over ITS Estonia for claims not relating to the Audit Agreement, but claims relating to the Audit Agreement fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Belgian courts under the contract's dispute resolution clause.

Court Disposition

ITS Limited's jurisdiction application dismissed; ITS Estonia's jurisdiction application allowed in part and dismissed in part.

Orders

  • ITS Limited's application dismissed in full; English court retains jurisdiction over ITS Limited.
  • ITS Estonia's application allowed in respect of claims relating to the Audit Agreement (those claims to be heard in Belgium), dismissed as to other claims (English court retains jurisdiction).