Arrow left dark
Newsletter icon SUBSCRIBE
Article Tags:
northern ireland

NI: NI High Court: Northern Ireland Court has jurisdiction to hear claims brought by Carl Frampton against Barry McGuigan

Clock icon Reading time: 5 minutes
Article Tags:
northern ireland

In relation to proceedings issued following the breakdown in the relationship between Carl Frampton and former manager Barry McGuigan, the High Court rejected submissions that England was the appropriate forum to hear the claims and that Northern Ireland was forum non conveniens.

Image

About this case:

Finding that one of the companies involved was domiciled in NI, and that Frampton was entitled to rely on the special jurisdiction that NI was the place of performance of the obligation in question, Mr Justice Horner determined that the NI court would have jurisdiction to hear the claims.

Background

Two of the claims were issued in Northern Ireland by Frampton against McGuigan and a number of companies with the name “Cyclone” in their title and in which McGuigan or members of his family (wife Sandra and son Blain) have or have had an interest. Mr Justice Horner said that these parties would referred to as the “Cyclone Connection”.

The First Claim is brought against McGuigan, Sandra and Cyclone Promotions (UK) Limited. Alleging breach of fiduciary duties, breach of trust, negligence, and misrepresentation, Frampton seeks a declaration that the International Promotional Agreement (IPA) is void and unenforceable on the grounds of uncertainty as to its terms..

The Second Claim is against a NI company, Cyclone Promotions Limited, in which Frampton seeks a declaration that the IPA is void due to its failure to identify the registered name of any company or its terms.

The Third Claim (the “English Claim”) was issued in England by Cyclone Promotions Ltd and Blain McGuigan against Frampton for breach of the IPA.

Frampton wants the court in NI to determine the outcome of the proceedings while McGuigan wants the English court to hear all the disputes.

In considering the claims, Mr Justice Horner commented that one of the many issues the litigation would have to resolve would involve the court determining whether the Cyclone Connection deliberately sought to “sow the seeds of confusion and make it much more difficult and complicated for Frampton to enforce his legal rights”.

The Issues

To prevent irreconcilable and inconsistent judgments in the different courts of the UK, the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, as amended, provides for the allocation of cases within the different jurisdictions or parts of the UK. Mr Justice Horner said that the general rule is that, subject to derogations, jurisdiction is determined by an individual or a company’s domicile.

It was agreed that the issues to be determined in respect of the two claims issued by Frampton in NI were:

  • Has the NI court jurisdiction to hear and decide the claims;

  • If it does have jurisdiction, has the Cyclone Connection satisfied the court on the balance of probabilities that the claims should be heard and determined in England.

    • Conclusion

    On the basis of the evidence adduced before the Court, Mr Justice Horner’s conclusions were:

    1. Date of service determines priority, and the NI courts were seised of the proceedings commenced by Frampton before the English claim was served.

      1. It would be for the English courts as to whether they deal with the claim brought against Frampton.

        1. Logically it would make sense to deal with the issue of whether or not the IPA is void and/or unenforceable before considering whether or not it has been repudiated by Frampton and gives rise to a claim for damages.

          1. Neither McGuigan, Sandra, Blain, Cyclone Promotions (UK) Ltd, nor CPUK are or were domiciled in NI.

            1. There were serious issues raised in the merits of the claims made by Frampton.

              1. The NI courts have jurisdiction to hear the claims brought by Frampton on the basis that Cyclone Promotions Ltd is domiciled in NI. Despite concluding that the parties listed above were not domiciled in NI, Mr Justice Horner said that Frampton was entitled to rely on the special jurisdiction that NI was the place of performance of the obligation in question.

                1. Alternatively, NI where the harmful event occurred and/or where the event which gave rise to the damage occurred.

                  1. The Cyclone Connection failed to satisfy the court that England was the appropriate forum for hearing these two actions.

                    1. Whether or not Frampton’s claim for unjust enrichment could be pursued against the Cyclone Connection in NI required further argument – if determined that the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear such a claim after further argument, then that claim will be stayed.

                      1. Frampton failed to raise a triable issue that McGuigan, as his manager in breach of contract, failed to make the necessary arrangements for Frampton’s training and preparation for his bouts.

                        1. Mr Justice Horner rejected the submission by the Cyclone Connection that only all three sets of proceedings could be heard in England; and stated that it would be a matter for the English court in due course to decide what approach it takes to the proceedings before it, which can be heard in NI because of the domicile of Cyclone Productions Limited.

                          2. Mr Justice Horner concluded that the Cyclone Connection failed to persuade the court that NI was forum non conveniens and said it would be unjust in all the circumstances if Frampton was deprived of his right to a trial in NI in respect of the First and Second Claims.

                          As such, in answer to the two central issues, Mr Justice Horner concluded that the court in NI has jurisdiction to hear the Claims brought by Frampton subject to the qualifications expressed in the judgment; and that the NI court is not a forum non conveniens.

                          • by Seosamh Gráinséir for Irish Legal News

                            • Copyright © Irish Legal News Ltd 2018

                            Share icon
                            Share this article:

                            Related Articles