Blue Tropic Ltd & Anor v Chkhartishvili

A court may stay proceedings as a discretionary case-management measure where parallel foreign proceedings exist, but the discretion must be exercised on the facts of the particular case. Relevant considerations include which proceedings were first, responsibility for creating the duplication, the procedural stage reached in each jurisdiction, the risk of delay, and the efficient use of judicial and party resources.

The court should not use case management to achieve indirectly a stay on forum non conveniens grounds where that route is unavailable. Uncertain future developments in foreign proceedings do not justify indefinitely suspending judgment, particularly where the parallel litigation was created by the party seeking the stay.

The claimants, two BVI companies, brought proceedings concerning transfers of real estate and shares connected with the estate of Badri Patarkatsishvili. The defendant asserted beneficial ownership and limitation defences under Georgian law.

After unsuccessfully challenging the jurisdiction of the English court, the defendant commenced parallel proceedings in Georgia. Those proceedings had progressed through trial and appeal, and were remitted for reconsideration by the Georgian Supreme Court. The defendant applied either for a formal stay of the English proceedings or for judgment to be informally delayed pending the Georgian outcome.

The central issue was whether the court should exercise its discretion to postpone delivery of its reserved judgment.

1. The application was dismissed. The court decided to proceed with delivery of its judgment as soon as possible.

2. The discretion concerning a case-management stay had to be exercised by reference to the facts of the particular case. The authorities relied on were of limited assistance because the circumstances were described as unique.

3. The English proceedings were first in time. The defendant had created the duplication by commencing the Georgian proceedings after the English jurisdiction challenge had failed. The Georgian proceedings had already reached an advanced stage, but the English trial had also been completed and the evidence substantially overlapped.

4. The application created no reliable endpoint for delay. Further appeals could follow whichever party succeeded in Georgia. Granting a stay might prevent the English court from ever delivering judgment and would make the administration of justice dependent on uncertain future events.

5. The court accepted that it had no jurisdiction to grant a stay on forum non conveniens grounds. The defendant’s changed domicile did not provide a basis for revisiting the mandatory jurisdictional position applicable when proceedings commenced. The court referred to Skype Technologies SA v Joltid Ltd [2009] EWHC 2783 (Ch), which cautioned against achieving indirectly through case management a result unavailable by the applicable jurisdictional rules.

6. In the circumstances, the judge considered that he had a duty to deliver the reserved judgment expeditiously. The possibility that the English judgment might affect, or be considered by, the Georgian court did not justify simply suspending the English proceedings.