header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Conflict of laws—Jurisdiction—Indian-based English company

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
19 November 2009
Issue: 7394 / Categories: Case law , Law reports
printer mail-detail

Choudhury and others v Bhatter and others [2009] EWCA Civ 510, [2009] All ER (D) 131 (Nov)

Court of Appeal, Civil Division, Ward, Stanley Burnton LJJ and Sir John Chadwick, 11 November 2009

The words “regardless of domicile” in Art 22 of the Judgments Regulation have no application to a case where the person to be sued is not domiciled in a member state.

David Chivers QC (instructed by Morgan Walker Solicitors) for the appellants. Christopher Pymont QC and Jonathan Russen (instructed by Barker Gillette) for the respondents.

The proceedings concerned a company incorporated in England in 1872 for the purpose of manufacturing jute in India. It no longer had any connection with England, save that it was registered there, maintained its registered office in London and was required to make annual returns to Companies House.

Disputes arose regarding the management of the company. Declarations were sought regarding the composition of the board and the body of shareholders.

The issue arose as to whether Art 22 of Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 (the Judgments regulation)

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
Read All
Public Accounts Committee warn of ‘extinction’ risk for legal aid
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
NLJ this week: The insider returns
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
NLJ this week: Drawing the line on contempt
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
NLJ this week: Stop and search by the numbers
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
NLJ this week: Looking back on the prorogation that never was
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll