Mabey and Johnson Ltd v Danos & Ors [2007] EWHC 1094 (Ch) (11 May 2007)

Mabey and Johnson Ltd v Danos & Ors [2007] EWHC 1094 (Ch) (11 May 2007)

The action against Deryck A Gibson Ltd must be stayed under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 due to the arbitration clause. England is the appropriate forum for the claim against Deryck Gibson personally, as the alleged fraud was perpetrated on an English company in England, under a contract governed by English law, and most evidence is in England. There are no rare and compelling circumstances to justify a stay of the action against Mr Gibson pending arbitration. Mr Gibson's application to set aside service out of the jurisdiction is refused.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 1094 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Mabey and Johnson Ltd; Defendant: Jonathan Laszlo Danos; Defendant: Barry Joyce; Defendant: Deryck A Gibson Ltd; Defendant: Deryck Gibson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial Fraud) / Interlocutory Application for Stay and Challenge to Jurisdiction
Outcome
Action stayed against Deryck A Gibson Ltd; action proceeds against Jonathan Danos, Barry Joyce, and Deryck Gibson; Mr Gibson's application to set aside service out of jurisdiction refused; costs awarded to DAG.
Legal Topics
Fraud, Conspiracy, Jurisdiction, Arbitration Stay, Constructive Trust, Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Commercial Law Civil Procedure Arbitration Fraud Conspiracy Jurisdiction Arbitration Stay Constructive Trust +1 more

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mabey and Johnson Ltd

Claimant

Jonathan Laszlo Danos

Defendant

Barry Joyce

Defendant

Deryck A Gibson Ltd

Defendant

Deryck Gibson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial Fraud) / Interlocutory Application for Stay and Challenge to Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the action against Deryck A Gibson Ltd should be stayed under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 due to an arbitration clause
  2. 2 Whether the action against Deryck Gibson personally should be stayed pending arbitration or dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether England or Jamaica is the appropriate forum for the claim against Deryck Gibson

Ratio Decidendi

The action against Deryck A Gibson Ltd must be stayed under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 due to the arbitration clause. England is the appropriate forum for the claim against Deryck Gibson personally, as the alleged fraud was perpetrated on an English company in England, under a contract governed by English law, and most evidence is in England. There are no rare and compelling circumstances to justify a stay of the action against Mr Gibson pending arbitration. Mr Gibson's application to set aside service out of the jurisdiction is refused.

Court Disposition

Action stayed against Deryck A Gibson Ltd; action proceeds against Jonathan Danos, Barry Joyce, and Deryck Gibson; Mr Gibson's application to set aside service out of jurisdiction refused; costs awarded to DAG.

Orders

  • Action against Deryck A Gibson Ltd stayed under section 9 Arbitration Act 1996.
  • Action against Deryck Gibson to proceed in England.