Yukos International UK BV & Ors v Merinson

Yukos International UK BV & Ors v Merinson

All claims in this action relate to Mr Merinson’s individual contract of employment. The Settlement Agreement was not entered into after the specific dispute had arisen, so its jurisdiction clause is ineffective under Articles 23(1) and 25(4) of the Recast Judgments Regulation. The English court is not precluded from entertaining the Annulment Claims by Chapter IV, as the Dutch Court Settlement remains contractual and subject to challenge under Dutch law. The English court, as the court of the Member State where Mr Merinson was domiciled at commencement, has jurisdiction over all claims.

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 Claim / Ruling on Jurisdictional Challenge
Outcome
Application for declaration of no jurisdiction dismissed.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Employment Contract, Settlement Agreement, Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Court Settlements
Employment Law Civil Procedure International Private Law Jurisdiction Employment Contract Settlement Agreement Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Court Settlements

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 10 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 Claim / Ruling on Jurisdictional Challenge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Are the claims 'matters relating to individual contract of employment' under Article 20(1) of the Recast Judgments Regulation?
  2. 2 Was the Settlement Agreement 'an agreement entered into after the dispute has arisen' under Article 23(1)?
  3. 3 Is the English court precluded from entertaining the Annulment Claims by Chapter IV of the Recast Judgments Regulation?

Ratio Decidendi

All claims in this action relate to Mr Merinson’s individual contract of employment. The Settlement Agreement was not entered into after the specific dispute had arisen, so its jurisdiction clause is ineffective under Articles 23(1) and 25(4) of the Recast Judgments Regulation. The English court is not precluded from entertaining the Annulment Claims by Chapter IV, as the Dutch Court Settlement remains contractual and subject to challenge under Dutch law. The English court, as the court of the Member State where Mr Merinson was domiciled at commencement, has jurisdiction over all claims.

Court Disposition

Application for declaration of no jurisdiction dismissed.

Orders

  • Mr Merinson may file further acknowledgment of service by 28 March 2018.
  • Claimants to file and serve Particulars of Claim by 13 April 2018 if acknowledgment filed.