Samengo-Turner & Ors v J & H Marsh & McLennan (Services) Ltd & Ors

Samengo-Turner & Ors v J & H Marsh & McLennan (Services) Ltd & Ors

The Court held that the bonus agreements were part of the claimants' contracts of employment and that the New York proceedings related to those contracts. The companies within the MM group suing in New York should be regarded as employers for the purposes of section 5 of the Regulation. Therefore, the claimants could only be sued in England, and an anti-suit injunction was necessary to protect their statutory right.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Julian Samengo-Turner; Appellant/claimant: Ronald Dennis Whyte; Appellant/claimant: Marcus Hopkins; Respondent/defendant: J & H Marsh & McLennan (Services) Limited; Respondent/defendant: Guy Carpenter & Co. LLC; Respondent/defendant: Marsh & McLennan Companies Inc.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Expedited Appeal From Refusal of Anti Suit Injunction
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Anti Suit Injunction, Jurisdiction, Contracts of Employment, Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses, Council Regulation (ec) 44/2001
Employment Law Private International Law Civil Procedure Anti Suit Injunction Jurisdiction Contracts of Employment Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses Council Regulation (ec) 44/2001

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Julian Samengo-Turner

Appellant/claimant

Ronald Dennis Whyte

Appellant/claimant

Marcus Hopkins

Appellant/claimant

J & H Marsh & McLennan (Services) Limited

Respondent/defendant

Guy Carpenter & Co. LLC

Respondent/defendant

Marsh & McLennan Companies Inc.

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Expedited Appeal From Refusal of Anti Suit Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proceedings in New York relate to individual contracts of employment within the meaning of section 5 of Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001
  2. 2 Whether the claimants' employer is the proper party under Article 20 of the Regulation
  3. 3 Whether an anti-suit injunction should be granted to restrain foreign proceedings contrary to the Regulation

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the bonus agreements were part of the claimants' contracts of employment and that the New York proceedings related to those contracts. The companies within the MM group suing in New York should be regarded as employers for the purposes of section 5 of the Regulation. Therefore, the claimants could only be sued in England, and an anti-suit injunction was necessary to protect their statutory right.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Anti-suit injunction granted to restrain the New York proceedings.