Battenburg v Phillips – Court Denies Claimant Second Bite Of The Cherry In A Different Jurisdiction

A person’s estate may compromise assets across the world which results in the involvement of more than one jurisdiction.

The starting point is that a person’s Will, or alternative in other jurisdictions, can only deal with assets in the jurisdiction it is made and any law affecting an asset outside of England and Wales will be subject to the rules in which the asset lies. This can lead to complications in the event of a dispute as any claimant will have to pursue any claim in the correct jurisdiction and in the event of a conflict, will have to decide the most appropriate jurisdiction.

The legal rules vary across different jurisdictions, therefore making it possible for different outcomes to be reached for the same claim, just in different Courts. This makes the decision to choose the appropriate jurisdiction that much more important. But what happens if a claim concludes in one jurisdiction, can an unsatisfied claimant pursue the same claim in another jurisdiction?

Battenburg v Phillips & Anor [2024] EWHC 3444 (KB)

Background

This occurred in the case of Battenburg v Phillips. In this case, the claimant pursued a claim against the deceased’s estate in relation to a contract the deceased entered into during his life. Claims were issued in both the High Court of England and Wales and in the Australian Courts. The claim in Australia was settled by consent, the terms of which included a provision that the claimant would apply for the dismissal of the High Court proceedings, which the claimant obliged by filing a notice of discontinuance.

The claimant then issued a further claim against the defendants relating to the estate with a view to pursuing the claim further in the High Court. This claim was later dismissed on the basis the claimant was believed to be attempting to re-litigate her claim which she had already settled. The Court commented that this amounted to an abuse of process and that all issues relating to the dispute should have been dealt with through the previous claim. The Court further commented that the consent order amounted to the claimant abandoning her claim and therefore litigation should not be allowed to continue indefinitely.

Comment

This case confirms the importance of pursuing a claim in the appropriate jurisdiction and where there are more than one, to ensure the chosen jurisdiction applies the preferred legal principles. Where a claim has been settled on the agreement all claims will be settled cross-jurisdictionally, this will prevent a further claim being pursued in England and Wales. Parties entering an agreement of this nature must therefore ensure the terms of the agreement are satisfactory.