Choudhury and others v Bhatter and others [2009] EWCA Civ 510, [2009] All ER (D) 131 (Nov)
Court of Appeal, Civil Division, Ward, Stanley Burnton LJJ and Sir John Chadwick, 11 November 2009
The words “regardless of domicile” in Art 22 of the Judgments Regulation have no application to a case where the person to be sued is not domiciled in a member state.
David Chivers QC (instructed by Morgan Walker Solicitors) for the appellants. Christopher Pymont QC and Jonathan Russen (instructed by Barker Gillette) for the respondents.
The proceedings concerned a company incorporated in England in 1872 for the purpose of manufacturing jute in India. It no longer had any connection with England, save that it was registered there, maintained its registered office in London and was required to make annual returns to Companies House.
Disputes arose regarding the management of the company. Declarations were sought regarding the composition of the board and the body of shareholders.
The issue arose as to whether Art 22 of Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 (the Judgments regulation)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=e3c4b2f1_1)
