Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank PJSC v Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty & Ors

Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank PJSC v Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty & Ors

The court determined that Abu Dhabi is the clearly more appropriate forum for trial, the governing law is UAE law under Rome II Article 4(2), and proceedings should be stayed as against the first to fourth defendants with liberty to apply for further relief. Defendants are entitled to costs of claim and freezing order set aside application, and one-third of jurisdiction challenge costs, all on the standard basis. Permission to appeal was refused as there was no realistic prospect of success on forum or disclosure issues.

Parties
Claimant: Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank PJSC; Defendant: Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty; Defendant: Khaleefa Butti Omair Yousif Almuhairi; Defendant: Saeed Mohamed Butti Mohamed Alqebaisi; Defendant: Prasanth Manghat; Defendant: Suresh Kumar Vadakka Kootala; Defendant: Prashanth Shenoy
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Commercial / Post Jurisdiction Challenge, Costs and Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Proceedings stayed as against first to fourth defendants; permission to appeal refused; costs awarded to defendants; worldwide freezing order to be discharged as directed.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Challenge, Forum Conveniens, Worldwide Freezing Order, Costs Assessment, Permission to Appeal
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Conflict of Laws Jurisdiction Challenge Forum Conveniens Worldwide Freezing Order Costs Assessment Permission to Appeal

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank PJSC

Claimant

Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty

Defendant

Khaleefa Butti Omair Yousif Almuhairi

Defendant

Saeed Mohamed Butti Mohamed Alqebaisi

Defendant

Prasanth Manghat

Defendant

Suresh Kumar Vadakka Kootala

Defendant

Prashanth Shenoy

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial / Post Jurisdiction Challenge, Costs and Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether England is the appropriate forum for trial
  2. 2 Whether service on first defendant was proper under section 1140 Companies Act 2006
  3. 3 Whether claims pass through necessary and proper and tort gateways

Ratio Decidendi

The court determined that Abu Dhabi is the clearly more appropriate forum for trial, the governing law is UAE law under Rome II Article 4(2), and proceedings should be stayed as against the first to fourth defendants with liberty to apply for further relief. Defendants are entitled to costs of claim and freezing order set aside application, and one-third of jurisdiction challenge costs, all on the standard basis. Permission to appeal was refused as there was no realistic prospect of success on forum or disclosure issues.

Court Disposition

Proceedings stayed as against first to fourth defendants; permission to appeal refused; costs awarded to defendants; worldwide freezing order to be discharged as directed.

Orders

  • Proceedings stayed generally as against first to fourth defendants with liberty to apply for additional relief.
  • Defendants recover costs of claim and freezing order set aside application without deduction.