Tedcom Finance Ltd v Vetabet Holdings Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE LONGMORE,LORD JUSTICE RIX |
| Judgment Date | 24 February 2011 |
| Neutral Citation | [2011] EWCA Civ 191 |
| Date | 24 February 2011 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
[2011] EWCA Civ 191
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION (COMMERCIAL COURT)
Before: Lord Justice Rix
Lord Justice Longmore
Mr Louis Flannery (of Stephenson Harwood) appeared on behalf of the Claimants.
Mr Edward Ho (instructed by Stephenson Harwood) appeared on behalf of the Claimants.
The claimants in this case have issued an arbitration application in order to preserve assets which are the subject matter of the arbitral proceedings or as to which a question arises in such proceedings pursuant to section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996.
Mr Justice Teare has refused to grant the orders requested by the claimants, in particular the injunction and associated relief, on the basis that he was not persuaded that jurisdiction existed to issue and serve proceedings on the second to fifth defendants, who were not parties to the arbitration presently constituted between the claimants, whom I will call Tedcom, and the first defendants, whom I will call Vetabet.
The judge said he was prepared to make an injunction as against the first defendants, Vetabet, but the claimants' advocate declined to pursue any application against Vetabet alone because he felt that it would be futile unless the other defendants could also be served with the application and be made the subject of an order.
Mr Justice Teare did not give any formal judgment but the effect of the interchange between the judge and Mr Flannery, who was appearing on that occasion before the judge, was that in the judge's view, neither CPR Part 62.5, which authorises the court to permit the service of an arbitration claim form out of the jurisdiction if the claim is for an order under section 44 of the 1996 Act, nor paragraph 3.1(3) of Practice Direction 6B, which permits service out of the jurisdiction where a claim is made against a defendant on whom a claim form, which raises a real issue which it is reasonable for the court to try, has been or will be served, and the claimant wishes to serve the claim form on another person, who is a necessary or proper party to that claim, could apply in this particular case.
The judge's view was that Part 62.5 could not apply because it only applied to parties to the arbitration. At any rate, where the parties sought to be served were outside the jurisdiction.
Paragraph 3.1(3) could not apply in the judge's view, partly because it only applied when a claim form had been served on a defendant and all that was proposed to be served on the first defendants in this case was an arbitration claim form, and partly because the dispute between Tedcom and Vetabet was to be in any event resolved by arbitration and not by court proceedings.
The claimants have now appealed against the judge's refusal as a matter of urgency. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
BNP Paribas SA v Open Joint Stock Company Russian Machines and another
...ER (D) (428) (Comm). Starlight Shipping Co v Tai Ping Insurance Co Ltd [2007] 2 CLC 440. Tedcom Finance Ltd v Vetabet Holdings LtdUNK [2011] EWCA Civ 191. Through Transport Mutual Insurance Association (Eurasia) Ltd v New India Assurance Co Ltd [2004] 2 CLC 1189. Transfield Shipping Inc v C......
-
Western Bulk Shipowning III A/S v Carbofer Maritime Trading ApS [QBD (Comm)]
...then equivalent of CPR 62.5 (1) (c) applied only to applications by and against parties to an arbitration. 112 By contrast in Tedcom Finance v Vetabet Holdings [2011] EWCA Civ 191, in an interlocutory decision, the Court of Appeal thought that there was an arguable case that the court had p......
-
Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings v Unitech Ltd
...that this is no longer the law in the light of more recent authorities. He relies on four cases. 38 The first such case is Tedcom Finance Ltd v Vetabet Holdings Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 191, in which the Court of Appeal held, on an urgent ex parte appeal and after hearing only brief oral argume......
-
Bnp Paribas S.A. v (1) Open Joint Stock Company Russian MacHines (2) Joint Stock Asset Management Company Ingosstrakh-investments
...than those in Vale do Rio Doce. 56 There is a reasoned (albeit brief) judgment of Longmore LJ (with whom Rix LJ agreed) in Tedcom Finance Ltd v Vetabet Holdings Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 191 which deals expressly with the point. In that case, the judge had held that an order for preservation of a......