Anchor defendant

Last updated

In law, an anchor defendant is a person who is made a defendant to a claim for the primary purpose of vesting jurisdiction to hear the claim in a certain court. Usually the purpose of the anchor defendant is to allow claims to be brought in a certain court against another defendant (not the anchor defendant) over whom the relevant court would not otherwise have jurisdiction. [1] Accordingly, use of anchor defendants is often a variation of forum shopping.

Contents

The reference to an anchor is metaphorical; "anchoring" the proceedings to the relevant jurisdiction where they might otherwise naturally drift to another court.

Basis

The use of anchor defendants as a litigation strategy relies upon two basic principles common to most legal systems. The first is that where a cause of action involves claims against multiple parties, it is convenient for all of those claims to be tried together to avoid the risk of inconsistent results. The second is that courts in different jurisdictions should seek to avoid holding concurrent trials relating to the same claims (this is usually referred to as the doctrine of lis alibi pendens ), both the avoid the risk of inconsistent results and to avoid defendants having to respond to the same claims in different courts.

Accordingly, whilst there is a general recognition that courts should only entertain actions against defendants over whom they have jurisdiction, most systems will expand this to include another defendant who is a necessary and property to a claim where there is proper jurisdiction over one of the defendants.

For example, with the European Union, Article 6 of the Brussels I Regulation provides:

"A person domiciled in a Contracting State may also be sued:
(1) where he is one of a number of defendants, in the courts for the place where any one of them is domiciled;"

Similarly, the English Civil Procedure Rules provide in RSC Order 11 (found in Schedule 1): [2]

"Rule 1 (1) Provided that the claim form does not contain any claim mentioned in Order 75, r.2 (1) and is not a claim form to which paragraph (2) of this rule applies, a claim form may be served out of the jurisdiction with the permission of the Court if—
...
(c) the claim is brought against a person duly served within or out of the jurisdiction and a person out of the jurisdiction is a necessary or proper party thereto;"

Limitations

As with other types of forum shopping, the courts in various jurisdictions have taken steps to try and prevent the abuse of court system by using anchor defendants. However, attempts to do so will always be limited by the powerful countervailing considerations of the need to ensure that all connected actions should be tried by a single court where ever possible.

For example, in Sharples v Eason & Son [3] it was held that leave ought not be given to serve a claim outside of the jurisdiction if the sole, or predominant, reason for beginning the action a party duly served within the jurisdiction is to enable an application to be made to serve parties outside of the jurisdiction.

Furthermore, even where the use of an anchor defendant successfully vests the jurisdiction to try an action against a foreign defendant in a court, the court will often have a general residual discretion to stay the proceedings on the basis that it is not the most appropriate court to try the case (the doctrine of forum non conveniens ).

In AK Investment CJSC v Kyrgyz Mobil Tel Ltd [4] Lord Collins gave the opinion of the Privy Council summarising the applicable principles of common law [5] in relation to determining whether it was proper to grant leave to serve proceedings on a foreign defendant who the court would not otherwise have jurisdiction over after the action had been originally commenced against an anchor defendant:

  1. The fact that the motive in suing an anchor defendant is merely to bring another defendant into the jurisdiction to be joined to the action does not necessarily mean the court will exercise its discretion against giving permission to serve proceedings on a foreign defendant outside of the jurisdiction. But it is a factor which the court will consider in the exercise of its discretion.
  2. However, there must be a serious issue to be tried against the anchor defendant. If there is no serious issue to be tried, or if the claim against the anchor defendant is bound to fail, then the foreign defendant should not be joined.
  3. If there is a serious issue to be tried, is the connection between the anchor defendant and the foreign defendant such that the foreign defendant truly a "necessary and proper party" to that action? The Court should look to determine if there is "one investigation" against both parties, or whether the claims against both defendants are "closely bound up" with each other.

Lord Collins subsequently endorsed his own decision on those points in Nilon Limited v Royal Westminster Investments S.A. . [6]

Examples

In Multinational Gas and Petrochemical Co v Multinational Gas and Petrochemical Services Ltd [7] the liquidators of an insolvent company incorporated in Liberia wished to bring claims against the company directors in England for breach of duty and negligence. However, none of the directors were resident in Britain and none of the actions complained of had occurred within the United Kingdom. Accordingly, the liquidators brought a claim against the company's brokers (which was an affiliated company incorporated in England) alleging negligence. The claimant company then sought to join the former directors claiming they had been negligent in reviewing the advice provided by the brokers, and that the directors were a necessary and proper party to the action. The English Court of Appeal held that the only basis for bringing proceedings against the broker was to try and bring the former directors within the jurisdiction of the court, and for this and other reasons [8] they refused to grant leave to serve the writ outside of the jurisdiction on the directors.

External references

Footnotes

  1. ↑ Rogerson, Pippa (July 2013). Collier's Conflict of Laws. Cambridge University Press. p. 150. ISBN   9780521735056 . Retrieved 4 December 2014.
  2. ↑ "The Civil Procedure Rules 1998". HMSO. Retrieved 3 December 2014.
  3. ↑ [1911] 2 IR 436
  4. ↑ [2011] UKPC 7
  5. ↑ The case was an appeal from Isle of Man, but the principles enunciated by Lord Collins were based upon English legal precedent.
  6. ↑ [2015] UKPC 2
  7. ↑ [1983] Ch 258
  8. ↑ They also held that there was no sustainable cause of action against the directors under Liberian law because the acts complained of had been ratified by the members of the plaintiff company.

Related Research Articles

A lawsuit is a proceeding by a party or parties against another in the civil court of law. The archaic term "suit in law" is found in only a small number of laws still in effect today. The term "lawsuit" is used in reference to a civil action brought in a court of law in which a plaintiff, a party who claims to have incurred loss as a result of a defendant's actions, demands a legal or equitable remedy. The defendant is required to respond to the plaintiff's complaint. If the plaintiff is successful, judgment is in the plaintiff's favor, and a variety of court orders may be issued to enforce a right, award damages, or impose a temporary or permanent injunction to prevent an act or compel an act. A declaratory judgment may be issued to prevent future legal disputes.

Liquidation is the process in accounting by which a company is brought to an end in the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Republic of Ireland, Cyprus, United States, Canada, Italy and many others. The assets and property of the company are redistributed. Liquidation is also sometimes referred to as winding-up or dissolution, although dissolution technically refers to the last stage of liquidation. The process of liquidation also arises when customs, an authority or agency in a country responsible for collecting and safeguarding customs duties, determines the final computation or ascertainment of the duties or drawback accruing on an entry.

Choice of law is a procedural stage in the litigation of a case involving the conflict of laws when it is necessary to reconcile the differences between the laws of different legal jurisdictions, such as sovereign states, federated states, or provinces. The outcome of this process is potentially to require the courts of one jurisdiction to apply the law of a different jurisdiction in lawsuits arising from, say, family law, tort, or contract. The law which is applied is sometimes referred to as the "proper law." Dépeçage is an issue within choice of law.

In law, the enforcement of foreign judgments is the recognition and enforcement in one jurisdiction of judgments rendered in another ("foreign") jurisdiction. Foreign judgments may be recognized based on bilateral or multilateral treaties or understandings, or unilaterally without an express international agreement.

The principle of lis alibi pendens applies both in municipal law, public international law, and private international law to address the problem of potentially contradictory judgments. If two courts were to hear the same dispute, it is possible they would reach inconsistent decisions. To avoid the problem, there are two rules.

Chicago & Northwestern R. Co. v. Crane, 113 U.S. 424 (1885), was a suit brought by a taxpayer and resident in the Town of Polk City, Iowa, on behalf of himself and all other resident voters, taxpayers and property holders, commenced suit in a state court of Iowa against two companies, praying for a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel the reconstruction and operation of the old line after the Chicago and North Western Railway, an Illinois corporation. changed the line and made it avoid the city, constructing a branch to the latter. C&NW Railway was leased the line by the D&M Railroad Company, an Iowa Corporation, who had received from a township in Iowa, in consideration of its agreement to construct and maintain a railroad to a city in the township, the proceeds of a special tax and a conveyance of a large amount of swamp lands. It constructed the railroad and operating it for a time before leasing it to C&N Railway.

The Virginia Circuit Courts are the state trial courts of general jurisdiction in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Circuit Courts have jurisdiction to hear civil and criminal cases. For civil cases, the courts have authority to try cases with an amount in controversy of more than $4,500 and have exclusive original jurisdiction over claims for more than $25,000. In criminal matters, the Circuit Courts are the trial courts for all felony charges and for misdemeanors originally charged there. The Circuit Courts also have appellate jurisdiction for any case from the Virginia General District Courts claiming more than $50, which are tried de novo in the Circuit Courts.

<i>Re Oasis Merchandising Services Ltd</i>

Re Oasis Merchandising Services Ltd [1998] Ch 170 is a UK insolvency law and company law case, concerning wrongful trading.

<i>Club Resorts Ltd v Van Breda</i>

Club Resorts Ltd v Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17, is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that has brought greater certainty to the question of a real and substantial connection in the assumption of civil jurisdiction by Canadian courts in matters concerning the conflict of laws.

<i>Cukurova Finance International Ltd v Alfa Telecom Turkey Ltd</i>

Cukurova Finance International Ltd & Anor v Alfa Telecom Turkey Ltd[2009] UKPC 19, P.C., [2012] UKPC 20, [2013] UKPC 2, [2013] UKPC 20, [2013] UKPC 25 and [2014] UKPC 15 were a series of judicial decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, one of which is a leading case on the remedy of appropriation for security interests that was introduced into United Kingdom law under the Financial Collateral Arrangements (No.2) Regulations 2003, which implemented the Financial Collateral Arrangements Directive. Together with its related appeals on preliminary and subsequent issues, it has defined the scope of the remedy, as well as what equitable relief may be available.

Cayman Islands bankruptcy law

Cayman Islands bankruptcy law is principally codified in five statutes and statutory instruments:

<i>Multinational Gas and Petrochemical Co v Multinational Gas and Petrochemical Services Ltd</i>

Multinational Gas and Petrochemical Co v Multinational Gas and Petrochemical Services Ltd [1983] Ch 258 is a leading United Kingdom company law case relating to directors' liability. The case is the principal authority for the proposition that a company will not be able to make any claim against a director for breach of duty where the acts of the director have been ratified by the members of the company.

<i>Nilon Limited v Royal Westminster Investments S.A.</i>

Nilon Limited v Royal Westminster Investments S.A.[2015] UKPC 2, P.C. is a leading case of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the right of a party to seek rectification of a company's share register, and the use of "anchor defendants". The case also included various obiter comments about the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

<i>Hague v Nam Tai Electronics</i>

Hague v Nam Tai Electronics refers to a pair of legal decisions of the Privy Council on appeal from the British Virgin Islands. The first was a unanimous decision given by Lord Hoffman, reported at [2006] UKPC 52, which focussed upon the anti-deprivation rule and secured creditor's rights. The second was a unanimous decision given by Lord Scott, reported at [2008] UKPC 13, and concerned the liability of a company liquidator. The second decision was much more widely reported.

<i>Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited</i> (in liquidation)

Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited [2015] UKSC 23 is a UK company and insolvency law decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in relation to (i) the attribution of unlawful acts of a director to the company where the company is the victim of the unlawful act, and (ii) the extent to which liability for fraudulent trading under section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 has extraterritorial effect.

Provisional liquidation is a process which exists as part of the corporate insolvency laws of a number of common law jurisdictions whereby after the lodging of a petition for the winding-up of a company by the court, but before the court hears and determines the petition, the court may appoint a liquidator on a "provisional" basis. Unlike a conventional liquidator, a provisional liquidator does not assess claims against the company or try to distribute the company's assets to creditors, as the power to realise the assets comes after the court orders a liquidation.

Hong Kong insolvency law

Hong Kong insolvency law regulates the position of companies which are in financial distress and are unable to pay or provide for all of their debts or other obligations, and matters ancillary to and arising from financial distress. The law in this area is now primarily governed by the Companies Ordinance and the Companies Rules. Prior to 2012 Cap 32 was called the Companies Ordinance, but when the Companies Ordinance came into force in 2014, most of the provisions of Cap 32 were repealed except for the provisions relating to insolvency, which were retained and the statute was renamed to reflect its new principal focus.

<i>Stichting Shell Pensioenfonds v Krys</i>

Stichting Shell Pensioenfonds v Krys[2014] UKPC 41 was a decision of the Privy Council on appeal from the British Virgin Islands relating to an anti-suit injunction in connection with an insolvent liquidation being conducted by the British Virgin Islands courts.

<i>Brooks v Armstrong</i>

Brooks v Armstrong[2016] EWHC 2289 (Ch), [2016] All ER (D) 117 (Nov) is a UK insolvency law case on wrongful trading under section 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

<i>Société Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale v Lee Kui Jak</i>

Société Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale v Lee Kui Jak[1987] UKPC 12, [1987] AC 871 is a judicial decision of Privy Council on appeal from Brunei which was for many years, and arguably still is, the leading authority in relation to anti-suit injunctions under the English common law.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.