JEB Recoveries LLP v Binstock

For jurisdiction under the Brussels Convention, domicile is determined by residence in the alleged country together with the nature and circumstances of that residence, including whether they show a substantial connection with the country. A domicile of origin, or a statement made for estate-planning or tax purposes, does not determine domicile for this purpose.

Where the defendant is domiciled in a member state other than England and Wales, contractual proceedings may proceed in England if the relevant Article 5 gateway is satisfied. For services, the court must identify a sufficient connection between the alleged contractual services and their place of performance. A claim may proceed where the pleadings disclose such a connection, even if the precise significance of work performed in England remains unresolved.

JEB Recoveries LLP, as assignee of alleged debts exceeding £10 million, brought four contractual claims against Judah Eleazar Binstock for services said to have been provided for or for his benefit.

Mr Binstock applied for a stay or strike-out, contending that the English courts lacked jurisdiction or should decline to exercise it. The jurisdiction issue was heard first. He said that he was domiciled in Spain; JEB disputed that position. The central questions were whether he was domiciled in England and Wales, whether he was domiciled in another member state, and whether the claims fell within the contractual gateway in Article 5 of the Brussels Convention.

1. Domicile. The court found that the evidence did not establish, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Binstock was resident in England and Wales or had the necessary continuing connection with that jurisdiction. His evidence pointed to Spain, where he spent substantial time and where his business interests were centred. A 2007 will describing him as domiciled in England was treated as having been made in the context of organising his affairs and addressing estate-tax jurisdiction, rather than as determinative of domicile for the Convention.
2. Other member-state domicile. It was sufficient for present purposes that Mr Binstock was domiciled in a member state, with France and Spain both capable of satisfying that requirement. It was unnecessary to determine which of those two countries was his precise domicile because, aggregating his residence there, he spent the majority of his time in those jurisdictions.
3. Contractual gateway. Under Article 5, a person domiciled in a member state may be sued in another member state in matters relating to a contract at the place of performance of the obligation in question. For contracts concerning services, the relevant place is where the services were provided or should have been provided.
4. The allegations concerning the first, second and fourth claims did not identify services provided or intended to be provided in England and Wales. Those claims were therefore not properly justiciable within this jurisdiction.
5. The third claim involved alleged work with BDO in London, meetings in London and arrangements for an English limited liability partnership, although the intended corporate structure also involved Bermuda. The pleadings disclosed a sufficient connection with England and Wales for that claim to proceed at that stage. The court did not need finally to determine the importance of the London work.

First-instance jurisdiction application. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.