Integral Petroleum S v Petrogat FZE

The court determined key questions of jurisdiction on a committal (contempt) application arising from interlocutory injunctions. It held that Article 24(5) of the Recast Brussels I Regulation can encompass committal proceedings as proceedings concerned with the enforcement of judgments, but that the Court of Appeal decision in Choudhary v Bhattar remains binding so Article 24(5) applies only where the person to be proceeded against is domiciled in a Member State. The court held that the claimant could not rely on Practice Direction 6B para 3.1(10) (a gateway for claims to enforce a judgment or arbitral award) but could in principle rely on PD6B 3.1(3) where there is a real issue between claimant and defendant and a necessary or proper party is to be served. The court found that the claimant had the better of the argument that two of the third parties (Mr Sanchouli and Ms Sanchouli) were de facto directors and so fell within CPR 81.4(3), but that Ms Lobis was not a director or other officer for that purpose.

Background and parties. The claimant, Integral Petroleum S.A., brought a committal application against five individuals (third parties) in connection with alleged breaches of interim orders made in proceedings about delivery of fuel oil against two corporate defendants, Petrogat FZE and San Trade GmbH. The third parties sought orders under CPR 11 to set aside service of the committal application, to set aside the court's permission to serve by email and a declaration that the English court had no jurisdiction to try the committal application.

Nature of the application and issues framed. The application before Mrs Justice Moulder raised three principal issues: (i) whether Article 24(5) of the Recast Brussels I Regulation 1215/2012 means permission to serve the committal application out of the jurisdiction was not required; (ii) if Article 24(5) did not apply, whether permission could be granted under CPR PD6B 3.1(3) or (10); and (iii) whether certain third parties were to be treated as directors or officers of the corporate defendants for the purposes of CPR 81.4(3).

Reasoning on Article 24(5). The judge analysed the definition of "judgment" in Article 2 and relevant authorities (including Reichert, Dar Al Arkan and judicial obiter in Vik and Teare J's decisions). She concluded that committal proceedings are coercive and directly concerned with enforcement of court orders and therefore fall within the ambit of Article 24(5). However, applying binding Court of Appeal authority in Choudhary, she held that Article 24(5) only confers exclusive jurisdiction where the person to be proceeded against is domiciled in a Member State; the change in wording in the Recast Regulation was not a sufficient basis to depart from Choudhary.

Rule and practice direction gateways. The court accepted Teare J's analysis that PD6B 3.1(10) does not extend to committal orders of the kind at issue (so the claimant could not rely on that gateway). The judge held that PD6B 3.1(3) could apply: there was a real issue between the claimant and the corporate defendants as to breaches of the court's orders and the third parties were necessary or proper parties because liability against them depended on establishing the company's breach and attribution under CPR 81.4(3).

Directors and attribution. Applying English principles on special rules of attribution and authorities on de facto directors, the judge concluded that the claimant had the better of the argument that Mr Sanchouli and Ms Sanchouli acted as de facto directors of Petrogat and San Trade and so could be subject to committal proceedings as if they were directors. By contrast, Ms Lobis was operating at an operational level and the claimant had not shown she was a director or other officer within CPR 81.4(3).

Outcome on the jurisdictional challenge. The court therefore found that Article 24(5) did not afford an automatic out-of-jurisdiction service route in respect of the third parties who were not domiciled in a Member State, but that the claimant could rely on PD6B 3.1(3) and had the better of the argument that the gateway applied in respect of the third parties other than Ms Lobis. The judgment disposes of the jurisdictional challenge accordingly.

The court dismissed the third parties' CPR 11 jurisdictional challenge in substance. It held that Article 24(5) of the Recast Brussels I Regulation does extend to committal proceedings but, by reason of binding Court of Appeal authority in Choudhary, applies only where the person to be proceeded against is domiciled in a Member State; Article 24 therefore did not afford an out-of-jurisdiction service route for the non‑domiciled third parties in this case. The court also held that PD6B 3.1(10) did not apply to the committal application but that PD6B 3.1(3) could apply and that the claimant had the better of the argument that Mr Sanchouli and Ms Sanchouli were de facto directors within CPR 81.4(3) (such that service out under PD6B 3.1(3) was available as to them), whereas Ms Lobis was not shown to be a director or officer for those purposes.