BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions >> Zumax Nigeria Ltd v First City Monument Bank Plc (Rev1) [2022] EWHC 604 (Ch) (17 March 2022) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2022/604.html Cite as: [2022] EWHC 604 (Ch) |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Chancery Division
Fetter Lane London, EC4A 1NL |
||
B e f o r e :
sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court
____________________
ZUMAX NIGERIA LIMITED |
Claimant |
|
- and – |
||
FIRST CITY MONUMENT BANK PLC |
Defendant |
____________________
Ms Poonam Melwani QC and Mr Paul Henton
(instructed by Preston Turnbull LLP) for the Defendant
Hearing date: 16 March 2022
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Nicholas Thompsell:
INTRODUCTION
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE HEARING
THE APPLICATION FOR JOINDER
THE DEFENDANT'S APPLICATION
i) lifting of the stay of the 2019 Claim imposed by the consent order dated 6 November 2019 so as to allow the Defendant to make an application for the Court to dismiss the 2019 claim as an abuse of process;
ii) confirming that the Defendant's application to strike out these proceedings as an abuse of process does not amount to a submission to the jurisdiction; and
iii) giving directions for a hearing in relation to its striking out application.
THE CLAIMANT'S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT
DECISION IN RELATION TO THE DEFENDANT'S APPLICATION
Lifting the stay
Non-waiver of the Defendant's objection to jurisdiction
I am of opinion that the Court of Appeal rightly held that the learned judge had erred in law when he decided that the application for a stay necessarily implied acceptance of the jurisdiction.
It is enough to say that his view was that a decision on the application for a stay could probably be reached by the court after a hearing lasting not more than one day, whereas a decision on the question of jurisdiction would take much longer and would involve considerable inquiry into the facts.
CASE DIRECTIONS
COSTS