Sirte Oil Company For Production, Manufacturing Of Oil And Gas v Kreimeia

Where a defendant is served within England, the English court has jurisdiction to entertain the claim. A defendant who does not challenge jurisdiction at the proper stage submits to it and cannot ordinarily raise jurisdiction or forum non conveniens after trial or judgment. A foreign-law challenge will not justify permission to appeal where the evidence gives no real prospect of success and the defendant’s admissions establish liability. Lack of legal representation does not itself make a trial unfair where the defendant had solicitor assistance and the findings do not exceed freely made admissions. Parallel proceedings abroad do not establish double liability without evidence of a real risk of duplicate recovery.

Sirte Oil Company, a Libyan state-owned company, sued Mr Abdullah Kreimeia and others in England concerning corrupt payments and breaches of fiduciary duty. After trial, Gibbs J made declarations against Mr Kreimeia, entered judgment for £771,099.61, ordered an account, and directed a further hearing on related proprietary and liability issues. The judge refused permission to appeal.

Mr Kreimeia sought permission from the Court of Appeal, arguing that Sirte lacked capacity under Libyan law, that the English court lacked jurisdiction, that he had been denied a fair trial through lack of funded legal representation, and that concurrent Libyan proceedings exposed him to being tried or required to pay twice. The central question was whether those grounds disclosed any real prospect of a successful appeal.

1. Application refused. An extension of time was granted, but the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success. A stay of execution was also refused.
2. Jurisdiction. Service on Mr Kreimeia while he was in England gave the English court jurisdiction. Under the Rules of the Supreme Court 1965 and the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, a defendant must challenge jurisdiction at the proper procedural stage. Mr Kreimeia did not do so and had submitted to the jurisdiction. His attempt to raise jurisdiction or forum non conveniens at trial, after judgment, and on appeal came too late.
3. Capacity under Libyan law. The material before the court gave no proper reason to doubt that Sirte’s representatives were authorised to bring the English proceedings. The Libyan order initially relied upon by Mr Kreimeia had been set aside on an apparently properly notified application. Later proceedings in Libya remained speculative. The issue was technical, and his admissions substantially removed any realistic prospect of defending equivalent proceedings in Libya.
4. Fair trial and representation. There was no unfairness. Mr Kreimeia had solicitors during the preparatory stages and received solicitor assistance during the trial. The findings of liability did not exceed his freely made admissions.
5. Concurrent proceedings and double recovery. The English action was civil and was not concerned with the Libyan criminal proceedings. There was no evidence of a real risk that Mr Kreimeia would have to pay twice for the same liability.

The order below therefore remained undisturbed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal was refused. An extension of time was granted, but the proposed grounds had no real prospect of success; a stay of execution was also refused.
• High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division: Gibbs J, after trial, made declarations of breach of fiduciary duty and dishonest assistance, entered judgment against Mr Kreimeia for £771,099.61, and gave consequential directions. Permission to appeal was refused.