Integral Petroleum SA v Petrogat FZE & Anor

Integral Petroleum SA v Petrogat FZE & Anor

Article 24(5) of Brussels I Recast applies to committal proceedings for contempt, but under binding authority, only to parties domiciled in a Member State. The claimant cannot rely on Article 24(5) for service out as most Third Parties are not domiciled in a Member State. The court finds that the claimant has the better of the argument that Mr Sanchouli and Ms Sanchouli are de facto directors, but not Ms Lobis. The gateway under CPR PD6B 3.1(3) is available for service out against the Third Parties other than Ms Lobis; gateway (10) is not available.

Parties
Claimant: Integral Petroleum S.A.; Defendant: Petrogat FZE; Defendant: San Trade GMBH; Third Party: Mr Klaus Sonnenberg; Third Party: Ms Mahdieh Sanchouli; Third Party: Mr Hosseinali Sanchouli; Third Party: Mr Kanybek Beisenov; Third Party: Ms Nadia Lobis
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Jurisdictional Challenge in Committal Proceedings (contempt of Court) / Reserved Judgment on Application to Set Aside Service and Challenge Jurisdiction
Outcome
Application by Third Parties to set aside service and challenge jurisdiction is dismissed in respect of all Third Parties except Ms Lobis; allowed in respect of Ms Lobis.
Legal Topics
Jurisdictional Challenge, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Committal for Contempt, Directors' Liability, Interpretation of Brussels I Recast, Civil Contempt Enforcement
Civil Procedure Conflict of Laws Commercial Law Jurisdictional Challenge Service Out of Jurisdiction Committal for Contempt Directors' Liability Interpretation of Brussels I Recast +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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Integral Petroleum S.A.

Claimant

Petrogat FZE

Defendant

San Trade GMBH

Defendant

Mr Klaus Sonnenberg

Third Party

Ms Mahdieh Sanchouli

Third Party

Mr Hosseinali Sanchouli

Third Party

Mr Kanybek Beisenov

Third Party

Ms Nadia Lobis

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Jurisdictional Challenge in Committal Proceedings (contempt of Court) / Reserved Judgment on Application to Set Aside Service and Challenge Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does Article 24(5) of Brussels I Recast apply to committal proceedings for contempt?
  2. 2 Does Article 24(5) apply to parties not domiciled in a Member State?
  3. 3 Are the Third Parties de facto directors or officers under CPR 81.4?

Ratio Decidendi

Article 24(5) of Brussels I Recast applies to committal proceedings for contempt, but under binding authority, only to parties domiciled in a Member State. The claimant cannot rely on Article 24(5) for service out as most Third Parties are not domiciled in a Member State. The court finds that the claimant has the better of the argument that Mr Sanchouli and Ms Sanchouli are de facto directors, but not Ms Lobis. The gateway under CPR PD6B 3.1(3) is available for service out against the Third Parties other than Ms Lobis; gateway (10) is not available.

Court Disposition

Application by Third Parties to set aside service and challenge jurisdiction is dismissed in respect of all Third Parties except Ms Lobis; allowed in respect of Ms Lobis.

Orders

  • Service out of jurisdiction permitted under CPR PD6B 3.1(3) against all Third Parties except Ms Lobis.
  • Committal proceedings against Ms Lobis set aside for lack of jurisdiction.