Koza Ltd & Anor v Akcil & Ors

Koza Ltd & Anor v Akcil & Ors

Both the Company Law Claim and the Authority Claim fall within Article 24(2) of the Recast Judgments Regulation, giving the English court exclusive jurisdiction. The Authority Claim is inextricably linked to the validity of the company notices and cannot be separated. By filing a counterclaim that goes beyond a mere reflection of the claim, Koza Altin has submitted to the jurisdiction for all purposes. The Strike Out Application should not be determined as a preliminary issue but at trial, as the authority issue is central to the dispute. The proposed transfer of £60m to Hanson Asset Management is in the ordinary and proper course of Koza Ltd's business and does not breach the...

Parties
Claimant: Koza Limited; Claimant: Hamdi Akin Ipek; Defendant: Mustafa Akcil; Defendant: Hayrullah Dagistan; Defendant: Mahmut Hikmet Keles; Defendant: Hamza Yanik; Defendant: Arif Yalcin; Defendant: Koza Altin Isletmeleri AS
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil (company Law) / Interlocutory Applications and Case Management Ruling
Outcome
Applications determined as follows: Jurisdiction Application allowed (English court has jurisdiction); Strike Out Application to be determined at trial, not as a preliminary issue; Hanson Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Under Recast Judgments Regulation, Authority to Act for Company/shareholder, Validity of Company Notices and Resolutions, Recognition of Foreign Acts and Public Policy, Injunctive Relief, Case Management, Freezing and Management of Company Assets
Company Law Private International Law Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Under Recast Judgments Regulation Authority to Act for Company/shareholder Validity of Company Notices and Resolutions Recognition of Foreign Acts and Public Policy Injunctive Relief +2 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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Koza Limited

Claimant

Hamdi Akin Ipek

Claimant

Mustafa Akcil

Defendant

Hayrullah Dagistan

Defendant

Mahmut Hikmet Keles

Defendant

Hamza Yanik

Defendant

Arif Yalcin

Defendant

Koza Altin Isletmeleri AS

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (company Law) / Interlocutory Applications and Case Management Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has exclusive jurisdiction under Article 24(2) of the Recast Judgments Regulation over both the Company Law Claim and the Authority Claim
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants have submitted to the jurisdiction by filing a counterclaim and applications
  3. 3 Whether the Authority Claim is justiciable under Article 24(2)

Ratio Decidendi

Both the Company Law Claim and the Authority Claim fall within Article 24(2) of the Recast Judgments Regulation, giving the English court exclusive jurisdiction. The Authority Claim is inextricably linked to the validity of the company notices and cannot be separated. By filing a counterclaim that goes beyond a mere reflection of the claim, Koza Altin has submitted to the jurisdiction for all purposes. The Strike Out Application should not be determined as a preliminary issue but at trial, as the authority issue is central to the dispute. The proposed transfer of £60m to Hanson Asset Management is in the ordinary and proper course of Koza Ltd's business and does not breach the...

Court Disposition

Applications determined as follows: Jurisdiction Application allowed (English court has jurisdiction); Strike Out Application to be determined at trial, not as a preliminary issue; Hanson Application dismissed.

Orders

  • Declaration that the English court has exclusive jurisdiction over both the Company Law Claim and the Authority Claim under Article 24(2) of the Recast Judgments Regulation.
  • Koza Altin has submitted to the jurisdiction by filing a counterclaim beyond the Company Law Claim.