Yukos International UK BV & Ors v Merinson [2018] EWHC 335 (Comm) (27 February 2018)

Yukos International UK BV & Ors v Merinson [2018] EWHC 335 (Comm) (27 February 2018)

Both the Damages Claims and Annulment Claims are matters relating to an individual contract of employment under Article 20(1). The Settlement Agreement was not entered into after the dispute had arisen as required by Article 23(1); the specific dispute was not communicated or joined between the parties at the time. Therefore, the jurisdiction clause in the Settlement Agreement is ineffective to override the mandatory jurisdiction provisions of Section 5. Chapter IV does not preclude the English court from entertaining the Annulment Claims, as it relates to enforcement, not jurisdiction.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 335 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Yukos International UK BV; Claimant: Yukos Capital Limited; Claimant: Yukos Hydrocarbons Investments Limited; Defendant: Dmitri Merinson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim / Jurisdictional Challenge (application to Set Aside Claim Form)
Outcome
Application dismissed; English court has jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Under Recast Judgments Regulation, Employment Contract Disputes, Settlement Agreements, Court Settlements, Interpretation of Article 23(1)
Private International Law Employment Law Contract Law Jurisdiction Under Recast Judgments Regulation Employment Contract Disputes Settlement Agreements Court Settlements Interpretation of Article 23(1)

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 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yukos International UK BV

Claimant

Yukos Capital Limited

Claimant

Yukos Hydrocarbons Investments Limited

Claimant

Dmitri Merinson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim / Jurisdictional Challenge (application to Set Aside Claim Form)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claims are matters relating to individual contracts of employment under Article 20(1) of the Recast Judgments Regulation
  2. 2 Whether the Settlement Agreement was entered into 'after the dispute has arisen' under Article 23(1)
  3. 3 Whether the English court is precluded from entertaining the Annulment Claims by Chapter IV of the Recast Judgments Regulation

Ratio Decidendi

Both the Damages Claims and Annulment Claims are matters relating to an individual contract of employment under Article 20(1). The Settlement Agreement was not entered into after the dispute had arisen as required by Article 23(1); the specific dispute was not communicated or joined between the parties at the time. Therefore, the jurisdiction clause in the Settlement Agreement is ineffective to override the mandatory jurisdiction provisions of Section 5. Chapter IV does not preclude the English court from entertaining the Annulment Claims, as it relates to enforcement, not jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; English court has jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Claim form not set aside; English court retains jurisdiction over all claims.