Ccunico Resources NV & Ors v Daskalakis & Anor

Ccunico Resources NV & Ors v Daskalakis & Anor

All claims brought by the claimants against the defendants relate to individual contracts of employment within Article 18 of the Lugano Convention; therefore, the jurisdiction provisions in the Advisory Contracts are ineffective and the English court has no jurisdiction over these claims.

Parties
Claimant: Cunico Resources NV; Claimant: Cunico Marketing FZE; Claimant: Feni Industries AD; Defendant: Konstantinos Daskalakis; Defendant: Arvind Mundhra
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Commercial / Jurisdictional Challenge
Outcome
jurisdiction declined
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Lugano Convention, Contracts of Employment, Fiduciary Duties, Group Company Employment, Third Party Rights
Private International Law Employment Law Commercial Law Jurisdiction Lugano Convention Contracts of Employment Fiduciary Duties Group Company Employment +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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 22
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cunico Resources NV

Claimant

Cunico Marketing FZE

Claimant

Feni Industries AD

Claimant

Konstantinos Daskalakis

Defendant

Arvind Mundhra

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial / Jurisdictional Challenge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction over claims brought by group companies against former senior employees under the Lugano Convention
  2. 2 Whether the claims relate to individual contracts of employment within Article 18 of the Lugano Convention
  3. 3 Whether Advisory Contracts between Marketing and defendants confer jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

All claims brought by the claimants against the defendants relate to individual contracts of employment within Article 18 of the Lugano Convention; therefore, the jurisdiction provisions in the Advisory Contracts are ineffective and the English court has no jurisdiction over these claims.

Court Disposition

jurisdiction declined

Orders

  • Declaration that the court has no jurisdiction over the claims in the 2017 Claim
  • Order setting aside service of the 2017 Claim on each defendant