606:
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
526:
As with other types of forum shopping, the courts in various jurisdictions have taken steps to try to prevent the abuse of court systems 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
576:
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
538:
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
472:
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
605:
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
462:
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
442:
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
568:
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
534:
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.
610:
held that the only basis for bringing proceedings against the broker was to try to bring the former directors within the jurisdiction of the court, and for this and other reasons they refused to grant leave to serve the writ outside of the jurisdiction on the directors.
597:
509:"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—
563:
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:
572:
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
753:
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.
463:
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
583:
515:(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;"
633:
89:
552:
481:
421:
395:
556:
620:
75:
607:
454:
is metaphorical; "anchoring" the proceedings to the relevant jurisdiction where they might otherwise naturally drift to another court.
784:
469:), both the avoid the risk of inconsistent results and to avoid defendants having to respond to the same claims in different courts.
664:
381:
726:
The case was an appeal from Isle of Man, but the principles enunciated by Lord
Collins were based upon English legal precedent.
414:
112:
654:
443:
relevant court would not otherwise have jurisdiction. Accordingly, use of anchor defendants is often a variation of
769:
407:
337:
325:
232:
774:
495:(1) where he is one of a number of defendants, in the courts for the place where any one of them is domiciled;"
344:
365:
299:
275:
82:
49:
17:
502:
332:
259:
779:
541:
388:
283:
120:
250:
223:
56:
569:
jurisdiction. But it is a factor which the court will consider in the exercise of its discretion.
351:
214:
183:
687:
660:
465:
152:
602:
205:
32:
358:
598:
Multinational Gas and
Petrochemical Co v Multinational Gas and Petrochemical Services Ltd
477:
444:
320:
291:
241:
169:
144:
763:
175:
68:
315:
105:
196:
190:
560:
267:
129:
625:
577:
the claims against both defendants are "closely bound up" with each other.
138:
581:
Lord
Collins subsequently endorsed his own decision on those points in
451:
63:
527:
actions should be tried by a single court where ever possible.
435:
488:"A person domiciled in a Contracting State may also be sued:
621:
Brussels
Regulation Article 6(1) and anchor defendants
584:Nilon Limited v Royal Westminster Investments S.A.
505:provide in RSC Order 11 (found in Schedule 1):
415:
8:
659:. Cambridge University Press. p. 150.
422:
408:
28:
559:summarising the applicable principles of
550:AK Investment CJSC v Kyrgyz Mobil Tel Ltd
18:AK Investment CJSC v Kyrgyz Mobil Tel Ltd
645:
373:
307:
161:
97:
41:
31:
76:Conflict of laws in the United States
7:
25:
688:"The Civil Procedure Rules 1998"
382:Enforcement of foreign judgments
1:
653:Rogerson, Pippa (July 2013).
801:
656:Collier's Conflict of Laws
634:Use of "anchor" defendants
532:Sharples v Eason & Son
785:Abuse of the legal system
233:Lex loci delicti commissi
37:private international law
555:gave the opinion of the
608:English Court of Appeal
501:Similarly, the English
308:Substantive legal areas
476:For example, with the
366:Hague Trust Convention
300:Forum selection clause
276:Lex loci celebrationis
83:Public policy doctrine
629:and anchor defendants
503:Civil Procedure Rules
482:Brussels I Regulation
389:Anti-suit injunctions
260:Lex loci protectionis
98:Definitional elements
542:forum non conveniens
450:The reference to an
284:Choice of law clause
121:Forum non conveniens
615:External references
480:, Article 6 of the
251:Lex loci solutionis
224:Lex loci contractus
57:Incidental question
215:Lex loci rei sitae
184:Habitual residence
162:Connecting factors
539:(the doctrine of
466:lis alibi pendens
432:
431:
153:Lis alibi pendens
16:(Redirected from
792:
770:Conflict of laws
754:
751:
745:
742:
736:
733:
727:
724:
718:
715:
709:
706:
700:
699:
697:
695:
684:
678:
677:
675:
673:
650:
627:Sabbagh v Khoury
530:For example, in
440:anchor defendant
424:
417:
410:
206:Lex loci arbitri
90:Hague Conference
50:Characterisation
33:Conflict of laws
29:
21:
800:
799:
795:
794:
793:
791:
790:
789:
775:Civil procedure
760:
759:
758:
757:
752:
748:
743:
739:
734:
730:
725:
721:
716:
712:
707:
703:
693:
691:
686:
685:
681:
671:
669:
667:
652:
651:
647:
642:
617:
593:
524:
460:
428:
359:Forced heirship
36:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
798:
796:
788:
787:
782:
777:
772:
762:
761:
756:
755:
746:
737:
728:
719:
710:
701:
679:
665:
644:
643:
641:
638:
637:
636:
631:
623:
616:
613:
592:
589:
579:
578:
574:
570:
523:
520:
519:
518:
517:
516:
513:
499:
498:
497:
496:
490:
489:
478:European Union
459:
456:
445:forum shopping
430:
429:
427:
426:
419:
412:
404:
401:
400:
399:
398:
392:
391:
385:
384:
376:
375:
371:
370:
369:
368:
362:
361:
355:
354:
348:
347:
341:
340:
335:
329:
328:
323:
318:
310:
309:
305:
304:
303:
302:
296:
295:
287:
286:
280:
279:
271:
270:
264:
263:
255:
254:
246:
245:
242:Lex loci actus
237:
236:
228:
227:
219:
218:
210:
209:
201:
200:
193:
187:
186:
180:
179:
172:
164:
163:
159:
158:
157:
156:
148:
147:
145:Forum shopping
142:
134:
133:
125:
124:
116:
115:
109:
108:
100:
99:
95:
94:
93:
92:
86:
85:
79:
78:
72:
71:
66:
60:
59:
53:
52:
44:
43:
39:
38:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
797:
786:
783:
781:
778:
776:
773:
771:
768:
767:
765:
750:
747:
741:
738:
732:
729:
723:
720:
714:
711:
705:
702:
689:
683:
680:
668:
666:9780521735056
662:
658:
657:
649:
646:
639:
635:
632:
630:
628:
624:
622:
619:
618:
614:
612:
609:
604:
600:
599:
590:
588:
586:
585:
575:
571:
567:
566:
565:
562:
558:
557:Privy Council
554:
551:
546:
544:
543:
536:
533:
528:
521:
514:
511:
510:
508:
507:
506:
504:
494:
493:
492:
491:
487:
486:
485:
483:
479:
474:
470:
468:
467:
457:
455:
453:
448:
446:
441:
437:
425:
420:
418:
413:
411:
406:
405:
403:
402:
397:
394:
393:
390:
387:
386:
383:
380:
379:
378:
377:
372:
367:
364:
363:
360:
357:
356:
353:
350:
349:
346:
343:
342:
339:
336:
334:
331:
330:
327:
324:
322:
319:
317:
314:
313:
312:
311:
306:
301:
298:
297:
294:
293:
289:
288:
285:
282:
281:
278:
277:
273:
272:
269:
266:
265:
262:
261:
257:
256:
253:
252:
248:
247:
244:
243:
239:
238:
235:
234:
230:
229:
226:
225:
221:
220:
217:
216:
212:
211:
208:
207:
203:
202:
199:
198:
194:
192:
189:
188:
185:
182:
181:
178:
177:
176:Lex domicilii
173:
171:
168:
167:
166:
165:
160:
155:
154:
150:
149:
146:
143:
141:
140:
136:
135:
132:
131:
127:
126:
123:
122:
118:
117:
114:
111:
110:
107:
104:
103:
102:
101:
96:
91:
88:
87:
84:
81:
80:
77:
74:
73:
70:
69:Choice of law
67:
65:
62:
61:
58:
55:
54:
51:
48:
47:
46:
45:
42:Preliminaries
40:
34:
30:
27:
19:
749:
740:
731:
722:
713:
704:
692:. Retrieved
682:
670:. Retrieved
655:
648:
626:
596:
594:
582:
580:
553:Lord Collins
549:
547:
540:
537:
531:
529:
525:
500:
475:
473:defendants.
471:
464:
461:
449:
439:
433:
396:Revenue rule
290:
274:
258:
249:
240:
231:
222:
213:
204:
195:
174:
151:
137:
128:
119:
106:Jurisdiction
26:
780:Venue (law)
603:liquidators
522:Limitations
374:Enforcement
197:Lex patriae
191:Nationality
764:Categories
694:3 December
672:4 December
561:common law
484:provides:
268:Proper law
130:Lex causae
640:Footnotes
113:Procedure
708:2 IR 436
591:Examples
352:Property
338:Marriage
326:Contract
321:Capacity
292:Dépeçage
170:Domicile
139:Lex fori
573:joined.
345:Divorce
744:Ch 258
735:UKPC 2
717:UKPC 7
690:. HMSO
663:
452:anchor
316:Status
64:Renvoi
458:Basis
438:, an
696:2014
674:2014
661:ISBN
601:the
333:Tort
35:and
595:In
548:In
545:).
512:...
436:law
434:In
766::
587:.
447:.
698:.
676:.
423:e
416:t
409:v
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.