Antonio Gramsci Shipping Corp & Ors v Stepanovs

Antonio Gramsci Shipping Corp & Ors v Stepanovs

There is a good arguable case that the corporate veil should be pierced, making the Defendant a party to the charterparties and the jurisdiction clause, and that the requirements of Article 23 of the Judgments Regulation are satisfied. Accordingly, the English court has jurisdiction and the freezing order should continue.

Parties
Claimants: Antonio Gramsci Shipping Corporation & Others; Defendant: Oleg Stepanovs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application (jurisdiction and Freezing Order) / Interlocutory Application to Set Aside Service and Challenge Jurisdiction
Outcome
Defendant's application to set aside service and challenge jurisdiction dismissed; freezing order continued until trial.
Legal Topics
Piercing the Corporate Veil, Jurisdiction Clauses, Freezing Orders, Agency, EU Regulation 44/2001 (brussels I)
Company Law Civil Procedure Conflict of Laws Piercing the Corporate Veil Jurisdiction Clauses Freezing Orders Agency EU Regulation 44/2001 (brussels I)

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Antonio Gramsci Shipping Corporation & Others

Claimants

Oleg Stepanovs

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application (jurisdiction and Freezing Order) / Interlocutory Application to Set Aside Service and Challenge Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction over the Defendant by virtue of the jurisdiction clause in the charterparties, if the corporate veil is pierced
  2. 2 Whether the corporate veil can be pierced to make the Defendant liable under the contracts
  3. 3 Whether the freezing order should continue

Ratio Decidendi

There is a good arguable case that the corporate veil should be pierced, making the Defendant a party to the charterparties and the jurisdiction clause, and that the requirements of Article 23 of the Judgments Regulation are satisfied. Accordingly, the English court has jurisdiction and the freezing order should continue.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application to set aside service and challenge jurisdiction dismissed; freezing order continued until trial.

Orders

  • The Defendant's application to set aside service of the claim form on the ground of lack of jurisdiction is dismissed.
  • The freezing order against the Defendant is continued until trial.