Chaim Saul Grosskopf v Yechiel Grosskopf & Anor
[2024] EWHC 291 (Ch)
NTT Limited & Ors v Jason Goodall
4 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 445 (Comm)
High Court
Several companies sued their former CEO. He wanted to resolve the dispute through arbitration as per his contract. The judge agreed to pause the court case because the companies are all related, the facts are very similar, and having two cases at once would be expensive and confusing. The judge thought it made more sense to let the arbitration happen first, even though it won't solve everything immediately.
Key Facts
- •NTT Group companies (Claimants) sued Jason Goodall (Defendant) for breach of fiduciary and contractual duties related to a property sale.
- •Goodall's employment contracts contained an arbitration clause.
- •Claimants initially sought a stay under the Arbitration Act 1996, but this was later limited to specific Claimants.
- •Goodall sought a stay of proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction of the court and/or s.49(3) Senior Courts Act 1981 and/or CPR 3.1(2)(f).
- •The court proceedings were at a very early stage.
- •The arbitration process had not yet commenced, although triggered.
- •The Claimants are related companies, and the factual basis for the claims are intertwined.
Legal Principles
The court has inherent jurisdiction to stay proceedings where it thinks fit, considering the interests of justice.
Athena Capital Fund v Holy See [2022] EWCA Civ 1051; Senior Courts Act 1981, s.49(3); CPR 3.1(2)(f)
A claimant does not have an unfettered right to pursue a claim; the court can control its business and defer claims if in the interests of justice.
Athena Capital Fund v Holy See [2022] EWCA Civ 1051
The test for a stay is not solely 'rare and compelling circumstances', but whether a stay serves the interests of justice.
Athena Capital Fund v Holy See [2022] EWCA Civ 1051
Factors such as an exclusive jurisdiction clause are weighty against granting a stay.
Athena Capital Fund v Holy See [2022] EWCA Civ 1051
A stay may be granted where parallel proceedings exist, raising similar issues, and earlier resolution in a foreign proceeding would better serve justice (but only in rare or compelling circumstances).
Unwired Planet International Ltd v Huawei Technologies (UK) Ltd [2020] Bus LR 2422
Relevant factors in considering a stay include whether the other proceedings bind the parties, whether the parties are the same, and whether the other proceedings will resolve the issues in the stayed case.
Klockner Holdings GmbH v Klockner Beteiligungs GmbH [2005] EWHC 1453 (Comm)
Outcomes
The application for a stay of the Respondents’ claims succeeded.
The court found that granting a stay served the interests of justice, considering the related nature of the Claimants, the intertwined factual basis of the claims, the potential for inconsistent decisions, and the avoidance of duplicative costs. While acknowledging the Claimant's right to pursue claims, the court prioritized avoiding parallel proceedings in this specific context.
Similar Cases
Manolete Partners PLC v Nigel John Jones & Anor.
[2023] EWHC 236 (Ch)
Knaresborough Investments Limited v Styles & Wood Group Limited (in liquidation) & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1356 (Comm)
Ionut Cosmin Onea v Contingent and Future Technologies Ltd
[2023] EAT 125
Ceto Shipping Corporation v Savory Shipping Inc
[2024] EWHC 663 (Comm)