JEB Recoveries LLP v Binstock [2016] EWCA Civ 1008 (19 October 2016)

JEB Recoveries LLP v Binstock [2016] EWCA Civ 1008 (19 October 2016)

JEB failed to establish a good arguable case that England was the place of main provision of services under the alleged contract, as required by Article 5(1)(b) of the Brussels Regulation; therefore, the English court lacked jurisdiction over the third claim.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] EWCA Civ 1008
Parties
Claimant/respondent: JEB Recoveries LLP; Defendant/appellant: Judah Eleazar Binstock
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Jurisdiction and Champerty
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Under Brussels Regulation, Champerty, Submission to Jurisdiction, Provision of Services Under Contract, Fresh Evidence on Appeal
Civil Procedure Private International Law Jurisdiction Under Brussels Regulation Champerty Submission to Jurisdiction Provision of Services Under Contract Fresh Evidence on Appeal

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JEB Recoveries LLP

Claimant/respondent

Judah Eleazar Binstock

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Jurisdiction and Champerty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction over the third claim under Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (Brussels Regulation)
  2. 2 Whether the third claim is founded on a champertous assignment
  3. 3 Whether the defendant submitted to the jurisdiction by conduct

Ratio Decidendi

JEB failed to establish a good arguable case that England was the place of main provision of services under the alleged contract, as required by Article 5(1)(b) of the Brussels Regulation; therefore, the English court lacked jurisdiction over the third claim.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Declaration that the English court has no jurisdiction over the third claim under Article 5 of the Brussels Regulation
  • Application to admit fresh evidence on appeal refused