![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
England and Wales High Court (Commercial Court) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Commercial Court) Decisions >> Shah & Anor v Chipperton [2024] EWHC 1696 (Comm) (24 May 2024) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2024/1696.html Cite as: [2024] EWHC 1696 (Comm) |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
BUSINESS & PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
COMMERCIAL COURT (KBD)
Fetter Lane London |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
(1) SANJAY SHAH (2) ELYSIUM GLOBAL (DUBAI) LIMITED |
(Claimants/Respondents) |
|
- and - |
||
CHRISTOPHER CHIPPERTON |
(Defendant/Applicant) |
____________________
Ludgate House, 107-111 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AB
Tel: 0330 100 5223 | Email: [email protected] | uk.escribers.net
MATTHEW BRADLEY KC appeared on behalf of the Defendant/Applicant
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Mrs Justice Cockerill:
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Claim
a. At some point in November 2015 Arig issued an invoice to the Second Claimant in the sum of £10 million. The narrative of the invoice stated: "Agreed investment in £10 million into Arthurian Life Sciences Plc float acquisition of shares in Plc." Thereafter it is said the Second Claimant made a series of bank transfers to Arig in the aggregate sum of £10 million. The money was paid by and for the First Claimant and received by Arig on behalf of and for the Defendant;
b. In late November or the first days of December 2015 it was agreed between the First Claimant and the Defendant that the Defendant would hold the £10 million on trust for the First Claimant for the purposes of purchasing shares in a company called Perceptive Bioscience Investments Limited (a company registered in England and Wales under company number 09777979 ("the Company")).
c. On 15 April of 2016 the Company name was changed to Arix and so the agreement effectively related to company which I have previously described as "Arix."
"Investment in Perceptive Bioscience Plc: As you are aware, I am the senior tax advisor to Professor Sir Christopher Evans and a shareholder in Perceptive. Due to the fact that I am a pre-IPO investor I am eligible for preferential entry on equity shareholdings. It is planned to float Perceptive on AIM in London in February/March 2016. Predictions from Deloitte are that there will be five to seven times gain. I also benefit from a 15-20 per cent uplift of any pre-IPO investment. Following our discussion, I am willing to place £10 million into the IPO on your behalf with the shares held in my name. Post-float the shares must be held for 18-24 months as Perceptive will be a listed company governed by stock exchange regulations. When the shares are disposed of you will receive– 1. Your initial £10 million investment; 2. a 75 per cent share of the premium of 15-20 per cent on the invested sum; 3. 75 per cent of the upside of an estimated 50-70 million (dependent on share performance). This will be paid by me in approximately two years' time as I dispose of my shareholding. This document is to be held confidentially and should not be discussed or released to any third parties."
JURISDICTION CHALLENGE: RELEVANT PRINCIPLES
"156. The principles applicable are familiar, and were stated in Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd [1987] 1 AC 460. For present purposes, they are as follows:
(1) In a case in which jurisdiction has been founded as of right by service within the jurisdiction, a stay will only be granted on the ground of forum non conveniens where the court is satisfied, the burden being on the defendant, that there is some other available forum, having competent jurisdiction, which is the appropriate forum for the trial of the action. In considering whether there is such another forum, the court will consider what factors point in the direction of another forum, and will consider whether the other forum is the 'natural forum' or 'that with which the action has the closest and most real connection'.
(2) If the court concludes that there is some other available forum for the trial of the action, it will ordinarily grant a stay unless there are circumstances by reason of which justice requires that a stay should nevertheless not be granted. On this the burden rests on the claimant."
"The court will look to see what factors there are which point in the direction of another forum as being the natural forum (i.e. that with which the action has the most real and substantial connection). These will include factors affecting convenience or expense, such as the availability of witnesses, and such other factors as the law governing the transaction, and the places where the parties reside or carry on business, and also whether the claim is part of a larger overall dispute which would be damaged by being fragmented or where the court has specialist expertise which ought to be made available in related cases."
"In the determination of the natural forum two factors require particular consideration: the law governing the relevant transaction and the effect of claims against multiple defendants. The court's overall enquiry ..." says Dicey "... will be to determine the forum with which the issues in dispute in the case have the closest connection and not simply to weigh factors without reference to the issues."
"If the legal issues are complex or the legal systems are very different the general principle that a court applies its own law more reliably than does a foreign court will help to appoint a more appropriate forum, whether English or foreign."
"Regardless of whether the two claims constitute a lis pendens or are simply closely related, the court will attach importance to the risk of irreconcilable judgments arising from parallel proceedings, whilst recognising that this cannot be avoided in all cases."
DISCUSSION
Governing Law
"If the settlor of the trust has chosen the governing law, then that law will apply."
"If no applicable law has been chosen, expressly or impliedly, the trust shall be governed by the law with which it is most closely connected," that matter to be determined by reference in particular to "(a) the place of administration of the trust designated by the settlor; (b) the situs of the assets of the trust; (c) the place of residence or business of the trustee; and (d) the objects of the trust and the place where they are to be fulfilled."
Implied Choice and Article 6
"The place where the relevant trust document was created is unlikely to be a particularly relevant factor but points, like the Act and the Convention, to the place of the administration of the trust."
"The situs or location of shares and of any equitable interest in them is in the jurisdiction where the company is incorporated or the shares are registered (which is presently unimportant, since in this case they coincide in Saudi Arabia): Dicey, op cit paras 22-044, Underhill and Hayton, Law of Trusts and Trustees (19th ed) para 100.128, both citing In re Berchtold [1923] 1 Ch 192, Philipson-Stow v Inland Revenue Comrs [1961] AC 727, 762, per Lord Denning."
Closest connection (Article 7)
"There is among these factors ''a certain implicit hierarchy, but also a considerable overlap for (a) [administration] and (c) [residence] will usually coincide. It should be noted that where the place of administration is designated by the settlor, this will be a very strong indicator of an implied choice of law pursuant to Art.6, so that it will rarely be relevant under Art.7. The situs of the assets of the trust may deserve little weight: the movables included in a trust are usually intangible, …. The place of residence or business of the trustee is a factor whose importance in the common law cases varied from almost irrelevance to near decisiveness. Where the original Trustees … are domiciled or habitually resident in the same State, or the settlor sets up a trust company in a certain State, the factor may well be of considerable importance. The final factor mentioned in Art.7 is the objects of the trust and their place of fulfilment. It is suggested that that little importance should typically be attached to this, since Art.7 is concerned with the law of closest connection. Only if the objects of the indicate to the court an objective factor relating the trust, such as where the assets should be invested, or the trust administered, should this be important.."
Overlapping Issues etc
CONCLUSION
COSTS (following further submissions)
PERMISSION TO APPEAL (following further submissions)