GB - Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings v Unitech Ltd & Ors

Judgment

Mr Justice Males :

Introduction

The issue raised by this application is whether the English court has jurisdiction to make a freezing order in aid of enforcement of a London arbitration award against subsidiaries of the award debtor against whom no substantive claim is asserted and who have no presence or assets within the jurisdiction.

In summary, the claimant is seeking to enforce an award which it has obtained against the first defendant (“Unitech”), an Indian company. The sum due now exceeds US $350 million, but so far nothing has been paid. Unitech is the parent of a group of companies incorporated in a variety of jurisdictions including not only India, but also Cyprus and the Isle of Man. It appears that substantial assets of the group are held by subsidiaries outside India. The claimant has obtained various orders against Unitech, including a worldwide freezing order, a disclosure order and an order for the appointment of receivers over Unitech’s shareholdings in four subsidiary companies. These subsidiaries are now the fourth, sixth, seventh and eighth defendants (respectively “URRL”, “Nuwell”, “Technosolid” and “UOL”, referred to in this judgment together with the fifth defendant “Nectrus” as the “ Chabra defendants”). The claimant seeks now to reinforce those orders by obtaining a freezing order against the Chabra defendants in accordance with the jurisdiction first established in TSB Private Bank International SA v Chabra [1992] 1 WLR 231 and since developed in other cases such as Revenue & Customs Commissioners v Egleton [2006] EWHC 2313 (Ch) , [2007] 1 All ER 606 and The Mahakam [2011] EWHC 3143 (Comm) , [2012] 2 All ER Comm 513.

However, the Chabra defendants are all incorporated outside England and Wales, have no assets, directors, officers or other presence within the jurisdiction and conduct no business here. In order to obtain relief against them, the claimant must first establish that the court has jurisdiction over them. On 26 August 2014 the claimant obtained permission on paper from Blair J to join the Chabra defendants to the existing proceedings against Unitech and to serve an amended claim form seeking a worldwide freezing order against them out of the jurisdiction. Jurisdiction was founded on three "gateways", namely:

CPR 62.5 (1)(c) (service of "an arbitration claim form” seeking a “remedy … affecting an arbitration (whether started or not), an arbitration agreement or an arbitration award");

CPR PD 6B,

Judgment

Mr Justice Males :

Introduction

CPR 62.5 (1)(c) (service of "an arbitration claim form” seeking a “remedy … affecting an arbitration (whether started or not), an arbitration agreement or an arbitration award");

CPR PD 6B,

Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings v Unitech Ltd & Ors

Areas of Law