Offshore Litigation

Blog

Offshore Litigation

Contributors

Jonathan Addo
Jonathan Addo
  • Jonathan Addo

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Ian Mann
Ian Mann
  • Ian Mann

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Nick Hoffman
Nick Hoffman
  • Nick Hoffman

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Vicky Lord
Vicky Lord
  • Vicky Lord

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Chai Ridgers
Chai Ridgers
  • Chai Ridgers

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
William Peake
William Peake
  • William Peake

  • Partner
  • London
Peter Ferrer
Peter Ferrer
  • Peter Ferrer

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
James Noble
James Noble
  • James Noble

  • Partner
  • Singapore
Jeremy Child
Jeremy Child
  • Jeremy Child

  • Partner
  • London
Claire Goldstein
Claire Goldstein
  • Claire Goldstein

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Jayson Wood
Jayson Wood
  • Jayson Wood

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Phillip Kite
Phillip Kite
  • Phillip Kite

  • Partner
  • London
Stuart Cullen
Stuart Cullen
  • Stuart Cullen

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Lorinda Peasland
Lorinda Peasland
  • Lorinda Peasland

  • Consultant
  • Hong Kong
Paul Madden
Paul Madden
  • Paul Madden

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Jessica Williams
Jessica Williams
  • Jessica Williams

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Paula Kay
Paula Kay
  • Paula Kay

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Andrew Thorp
Andrew Thorp
  • Andrew Thorp

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Henry Mander
Henry Mander
  • Henry Mander

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Andrew Johnstone
Andrew Johnstone
  • Andrew Johnstone

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Nicola Roberts
Nicola Roberts
  • Nicola Roberts

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Julie Engwirda
Julie Engwirda
  • Julie Engwirda

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Paul Smith
Paul Smith
  • Paul Smith

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands

Joining a necessary or proper party is not forum shopping

In the recent decision of ED&F Man Capital Markets v Come Harvest Holdings the public policy desire to avoid multiple proceedings and inconsistent judgments has carried the day on an application to serve a foreign defendant out of the jurisdiction.

This case is of direct relevance in the Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands, where the relevant procedural rules are substantively the same as those in England and the courts are regularly requested to exercise jurisdiction over foreign defendants.

In ED&F, the claimant contracted for the purchase of metals from two Hong Kong companies. The metals were purportedly stored in warehouses across Asia but the claimant subsequently discovered that the metals did not exist.  The English claimant commenced proceedings against the counterparties in England (being the jurisdiction agreed in the contracts) and then obtained the court’s permission to serve additional Californian and Singaporean defendants. One foreign defendant disputed that England was the “proper place” to bring the claims (this being the articulation in the procedural rules of the forum conveniens test and one of the three matters the court must be satisfied about before granting permission to serve a foreign defendant out of the jurisdiction).

On an application for permission, the court is tasked with identifying a single jurisdiction in which the claims against all defendants may most suitably be tried in the interests of all the parties and the ends of justice. As is clear from the brief description of the facts above, there were a number of potential jurisdictions given the location of the parties. The desire to avoid multiple proceedings and inconsistent judgments is often a decisive factor where, if the court denies permission, the claimant is left to launch multiple litigations against various defendants across the globe. However, in Lungowe v Vedanta Resources, the court held that this factor is given less weight where the risk of multiplicity arises from the claimant’s own choices (in that case, the English defendant offered to submit to the jurisdiction of the Zambian court – if accepted, the whole case could have been tried in Zambia - but the claimant nonetheless chose to sue the English and Zambian defendant in England). 

In ED&F, the foreign defendant ambitiously argued that the claimant had created the risk of multiplicity through its decision not to engineer a single composite forum in Singapore by either requesting that the Hong Kong defendants waive the jurisdiction clause in the contracts or by simply suing all the defendants in Singapore in breach of the jurisdiction clause. The High Court considered this went too far, distinguishing Vedanta on the basis that the claimant here did not exercise a straightforward choice between England and Singapore (or any other jurisdiction) where all defendants could be sued.

Joining a necessary or proper party is not forum shopping

Leave A Comment