Young v Anglo American South Africa Ltd and Others (No 2)

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date31 July 2014
Date31 July 2014
CourtCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)

Court of Appeal

Before Lord Dyson, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Aikens and Dame Janet Smith

Young
and
Anglo American South Africa Ltd and Others (No 2)
Determining company's place of 'central administration'

A company, which had its statutory seat and principal place of business outside England, had its "central administration" in England if that was the place where, through its relevant organs and according to its own constitutional provisions, it took the decisions essential for its operations and, i f so, it was domiciled in England and could be sued in England.

The Court of Appeal so held, when dismissing the appeal of the claimant, Jessica Margaret Young, by her father and litigation friend, Kenneth Niall Young, against the decision of Mr Justice Andrew SmithUNK ([2013] EWHC 2131 (QB)) that the court had no jurisdiction to try medical negligence cl aims against the defendants, Anglo American South Africa Ltd, Dr Peter Jankowitz and four other doctors (who had been employed by the first defendant company but on whom the proceedings had not been served) arising from treatment provided to the claimant in Botswana and South Africa.

The claimants in Vava v Anglo American South Africa Ltd, which had been heard with the instant case, did not appeal.

Mr Alexander Layton, QC and Mr Sudhanshu Swaroop for the claimant; Mr Guy Philipps, QC and Mr Stephen Midwinter for the first defendant company; Mr Howard Palmer, QC for the second defendant.

LORD JUSTICE AIKENS said that the question was whether there was a good arguable case that the first defendant, a South African company, had had its "central administration" in England for the purposes of article 60(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (the Brussels I Regulati on), in August 2011 when the current proceedings had been issued.

If so the company could be sued in England under article 2 of the Regulation. The judge had held that there was no such good arguable case and declared that the English court had no jurisdiction to try the action.

It was accepted by the claimants that neither the company's statutory seat nor its principal place of business was in England, so for the purposes of article 60 of the Regulation the only way it could be established that the company was domiciled in England was to show that there was a good arguabl e case that its central administration was in England.

Article 60, which was to be given an autonomous meaning not based on the canons of construction of any...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT