Bucher-Haefner v Lewinsohn & Anor [2022] EWHC 2080 (Ch) (16 August 2022)

Bucher-Haefner v Lewinsohn & Anor [2022] EWHC 2080 (Ch) (16 August 2022)

The court granted the anti-suit injunction because Mr Lewinsohn, having elected for dismissal of his counterclaim in England for finality and represented that a fair trial was no longer possible, is estopped from relitigating the same claims in Utah. Pursuing the Utah proceedings would be an abuse of process and unconscionable conduct. The English court has a sufficient interest to restrain the Utah proceedings to protect its process and the integrity of its orders. The existence of Utah law and jurisdiction clauses does not override the abuse of process analysis in these circumstances.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 2080 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Eva-Maria Bucher-Haefner; Defendant: Max Lewinsohn; Defendant: Maximillian and Co
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Anti Suit Injunction Application / Judgment After Contested Hearing
Outcome
Anti-suit injunction granted
Legal Topics
Anti Suit Injunctions, Abuse of Process, Estoppel by Conduct, Comity, Re Litigation, Jurisdiction Clauses
Civil Procedure Private International Law Insolvency Anti Suit Injunctions Abuse of Process Estoppel by Conduct Comity Re Litigation +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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eva-Maria Bucher-Haefner

Claimant

Max Lewinsohn

Defendant

Maximillian and Co

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Anti Suit Injunction Application / Judgment After Contested Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court should grant an anti-suit injunction restraining proceedings in Utah on the basis that they are abusive, vexatious, or unconscionable re-litigation of matters already disposed of in England.
  2. 2 Whether the Utah proceedings are an abuse of process given the dismissal of the counterclaim and costs orders in England.
  3. 3 Whether the Intercreditor Agreement's Utah law and jurisdiction provisions preclude the grant of an anti-suit injunction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court granted the anti-suit injunction because Mr Lewinsohn, having elected for dismissal of his counterclaim in England for finality and represented that a fair trial was no longer possible, is estopped from relitigating the same claims in Utah. Pursuing the Utah proceedings would be an abuse of process and unconscionable conduct. The English court has a sufficient interest to restrain the Utah proceedings to protect its process and the integrity of its orders. The existence of Utah law and jurisdiction clauses does not override the abuse of process analysis in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Anti-suit injunction granted

Orders

  • Defendants restrained from pursuing the Utah proceedings against the claimant in respect of the claims mirroring the dismissed English counterclaim.