Sabbagh v Khoury & Ors

Sabbagh v Khoury & Ors

The Court (majority) held that for jurisdiction under Article 6(1) of the Brussels Regulation, there must be a real prospect of success against the anchor defendant; the share deprivation claim against Wael is arguable and should not have been struck out; Sana is not estopped by prior agreements; the claims are not matters of succession and are within the Regulation; and the claims are not subject to a mandatory stay for arbitration. The appeal is allowed.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: S/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 Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Under Brussels Regulation, Necessary or Proper Party, Conspiracy, Arbitration Stay, Succession Exception, Estoppel, Summary Judgment/strike Out
Private International Law Civil Procedure Succession Law Company Law Jurisdiction Under Brussels Regulation Necessary or Proper Party Conspiracy Arbitration Stay +3 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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S/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 Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Article 6(1) of the Brussels Regulation requires a merits test against the anchor defendant for jurisdiction over non-anchor defendants
  2. 2 Whether the share deprivation claim has a real prospect of success against the anchor defendant
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is estopped by agreements from asserting entitlement to shares

Ratio Decidendi

The Court (majority) held that for jurisdiction under Article 6(1) of the Brussels Regulation, there must be a real prospect of success against the anchor defendant; the share deprivation claim against Wael is arguable and should not have been struck out; Sana is not estopped by prior agreements; the claims are not matters of succession and are within the Regulation; and the claims are not subject to a mandatory stay for arbitration. The appeal is allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The share deprivation claim is reinstated against Wael and the non-anchor defendants.
  • No mandatory stay for arbitration is granted.