Sabbagh v Khoury & Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 1120 (28 July 2017)

Sabbagh v Khoury & Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 1120 (28 July 2017)

The Court held that for jurisdiction under Article 6(1) Brussels Regulation, there must be a serious issue to be tried against the anchor defendant; hopeless claims cannot be used to establish jurisdiction over foreign co-defendants. On the merits, the share deprivation claim against Wael had a real prospect of success and was not precluded by estoppel or prior agreements. The judge erred in striking out the share deprivation claim. The asset misappropriation claim was not subject to a stay for arbitration. The appeal was allowed in part, restoring the share deprivation claim.

Citation
[2017] EWCA Civ 1120
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Sana Hassib Sabbagh; 1st Defendant/respondent: Wael Said Khoury; 2nd Defendant/respondent: Said Toufic Khoury; 3rd Defendant/respondent: Samer Said Khoury; 4th Defendant/respondent: Toufic Said Khoury; 5th Defendant/respondent: Samir Hassib Sabbagh; 6th Defendant/respondent: Suheil Hassib Sabbagh; 7th Defendant/respondent: Wahbe Abdallah Tamari; 8th Defendant/respondent: Consolidated Contractors Group SAL (Holding Company); 9th Defendant/respondent: Consolidated Contractors International Company (SAL) (Offshore); 10th Defendant/respondent: Hassib Holding SAL
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Jurisdiction and Merits
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; share deprivation claim restored; jurisdiction upheld over non-domiciled defendants; no stay for arbitration on asset misappropriation claim.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Under Brussels Regulation, Conspiracy, Share Ownership, Estoppel, Arbitration Stay, Forum Conveniens
Private International Law Civil Procedure Commercial Law Jurisdiction Under Brussels Regulation Conspiracy Share Ownership Estoppel Arbitration Stay +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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sana Hassib Sabbagh

Claimant/appellant

Wael Said Khoury

1st Defendant/respondent

Said Toufic Khoury

2nd Defendant/respondent

Samer Said Khoury

3rd Defendant/respondent

Toufic Said Khoury

4th Defendant/respondent

Samir Hassib Sabbagh

5th Defendant/respondent

Suheil Hassib Sabbagh

6th Defendant/respondent

Wahbe Abdallah Tamari

7th Defendant/respondent

Consolidated Contractors Group SAL (Holding Company)

8th Defendant/respondent

Consolidated Contractors International Company (SAL) (Offshore)

9th Defendant/respondent

Hassib Holding SAL

10th Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Jurisdiction and Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether English courts have jurisdiction under Article 6(1) Brussels Regulation over non-domiciled defendants based on claims against an anchor defendant
  2. 2 Whether the share deprivation claim has a real prospect of success against the anchor defendant
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is estopped from asserting entitlement to shares by prior agreements

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that for jurisdiction under Article 6(1) Brussels Regulation, there must be a serious issue to be tried against the anchor defendant; hopeless claims cannot be used to establish jurisdiction over foreign co-defendants. On the merits, the share deprivation claim against Wael had a real prospect of success and was not precluded by estoppel or prior agreements. The judge erred in striking out the share deprivation claim. The asset misappropriation claim was not subject to a stay for arbitration. The appeal was allowed in part, restoring the share deprivation claim.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; share deprivation claim restored; jurisdiction upheld over non-domiciled defendants; no stay for arbitration on asset misappropriation claim.

Orders

  • Share deprivation claim reinstated against Wael and non-anchor defendants.
  • Jurisdiction upheld under Article 6(1) Brussels Regulation.