Madoff Securities International Ltd v Raven & Ors [2011] EWHC 3102 (Comm) (25 November 2011)

Madoff Securities International Ltd v Raven & Ors [2011] EWHC 3102 (Comm) (25 November 2011)

Article 6(1) of the Judgments Regulation does not confer jurisdiction over a non-domiciled defendant in favour of a claimant who has no claim against the anchor defendant; the provision is limited to situations where the same claimant brings claims against both the anchor and non-domiciled defendants. Accordingly, the English court has no jurisdiction over the BLMIS claim against the Kohn defendants.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 3102 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Madoff Securities International Limited; Claimant: Irving H Picard (Trustee for the SIPA liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC and Bernard L. Madoff); Defendants: Stephen Ernest John Raven and Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Proceedings / Interlocutory Applications—jurisdiction Challenge and Freezing Injunction
Outcome
Jurisdiction challenge by Kohn defendants allowed; English court has no jurisdiction over BLMIS claim against Kohn defendants under Article 6(1).
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Under Council Regulation (ec) 44/2001 (judgments Regulation), Article 6(1) Anchor Defendant Jurisdiction, Constructive Trust and Knowing Receipt, Freezing Injunctions, Restitution
Private International Law Civil Procedure Trusts and Equity Jurisdiction Under Council Regulation (ec) 44/2001 (judgments Regulation) Article 6(1) Anchor Defendant Jurisdiction Constructive Trust and Knowing Receipt Freezing Injunctions Restitution

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Madoff Securities International Limited

Claimant

Irving H Picard (Trustee for the SIPA liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC and Bernard L. Madoff)

Claimant

Stephen Ernest John Raven and Others

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Proceedings / Interlocutory Applications—jurisdiction Challenge and Freezing Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Article 6(1) of the Judgments Regulation allows a claimant with no claim against the anchor defendant to invoke jurisdiction over a non-domiciled defendant based on another claimant's claim against the anchor defendant
  2. 2 Whether the English court has jurisdiction over the BLMIS claim against the Kohn defendants under Article 6(1)
  3. 3 Whether a freezing injunction and/or proprietary injunction should be granted against Mrs Kohn and the thirteenth defendant

Ratio Decidendi

Article 6(1) of the Judgments Regulation does not confer jurisdiction over a non-domiciled defendant in favour of a claimant who has no claim against the anchor defendant; the provision is limited to situations where the same claimant brings claims against both the anchor and non-domiciled defendants. Accordingly, the English court has no jurisdiction over the BLMIS claim against the Kohn defendants.

Court Disposition

Jurisdiction challenge by Kohn defendants allowed; English court has no jurisdiction over BLMIS claim against Kohn defendants under Article 6(1).

Orders

  • BLMIS claim against Kohn defendants set aside for want of jurisdiction.
  • No order made on freezing injunction application in respect of BLMIS claim.