Catalyst Investment Group Ltd v Lewinsohn & Ors

Catalyst Investment Group Ltd v Lewinsohn & Ors

The English court does not have power to stay or decline jurisdiction in favour of the Utah courts on forum conveniens or lis alibi pendens grounds where jurisdiction is properly founded under Article 2 of the Regulation. The ECJ's decision in Owusu v Jackson precludes such a stay, and Article 27 cannot be applied 'reflexively' to non-EU states. Even if the court had such power, Utah is not shown to be a distinctly more appropriate forum for the disputes.

Parties
Claimant: Catalyst Investment Group Limited; Claimant: Tim Roberts; Claimant: ARM Asset-Backed Securities SA; Defendant: Max Lewinsohn; Defendant: Maximillian & Co; Defendant: Micropower Global Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Part 11 Applications for Stay/decline of Jurisdiction
Outcome
All Part 11 applications dismissed; unopposed application to join Assignors as co-claimants in Noteholder Proceedings granted.
Legal Topics
Forum Conveniens, Lis Alibi Pendens, Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses, Brussels Regulation, Stay of Proceedings
Civil Procedure Conflict of Laws Jurisdiction Forum Conveniens Lis Alibi Pendens Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses Brussels Regulation Stay of Proceedings

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Catalyst Investment Group Limited

Claimant

Tim Roberts

Claimant

ARM Asset-Backed Securities SA

Claimant

Max Lewinsohn

Defendant

Maximillian & Co

Defendant

Micropower Global Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Part 11 Applications for Stay/decline of Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has power to stay proceedings or decline jurisdiction in favour of a non-EU court (Utah, USA) where parallel proceedings are pending
  2. 2 Whether Article 27 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 can be applied 'reflexively' to non-EU states
  3. 3 Whether the ECJ decision in Owusu v Jackson precludes a stay on forum conveniens grounds in favour of a non-EU court

Ratio Decidendi

The English court does not have power to stay or decline jurisdiction in favour of the Utah courts on forum conveniens or lis alibi pendens grounds where jurisdiction is properly founded under Article 2 of the Regulation. The ECJ's decision in Owusu v Jackson precludes such a stay, and Article 27 cannot be applied 'reflexively' to non-EU states. Even if the court had such power, Utah is not shown to be a distinctly more appropriate forum for the disputes.

Court Disposition

All Part 11 applications dismissed; unopposed application to join Assignors as co-claimants in Noteholder Proceedings granted.

Orders

  • Dismissal of all Part 11 applications for stay or to decline jurisdiction.
  • Grant of unopposed application to join Assignors as co-claimants in Noteholder Proceedings.