BL-2025-000785 - [2025] EWHC 2470 (Ch)

Fecha: 30-Sep-2025

H. Mr Protopapas as the First Defendant in these proceedings

H.Mr Protopapas as the First Defendant in these proceedings

21.

It is convenient, at this point, to deal with this court’s jurisdiction over Mr Protopapas. Mr Protopapas is the First Defendant in these proceedings. The Part 8 Claim initiating these proceedings was issued on 24 June 2025, permission for service out of the jurisdiction on Mr Protopapas was granted by Master Pester on an expedited basis by orders dated 25 June 2025 and 2 July 2025, and service was duly effected on Mr Protopapas on 2 July 2025.

22.

Mr Protopapas has not acknowledged service nor filed any evidence. Nor has he sought to contest jurisdiction in these proceedings or to aver, in these proceedings, that this court has no jurisdiction over him.

23.

I therefore hold that this court has personal jurisdiction over Mr Protopapas.

24.

There is one point that (had he appeared before me on the question of jurisdiction) Mr Protopapas might have deployed, which is the provision at the end of the Receivership Order which provides:

The Court further orders that, as the Receiver Court, that the Receiver or Cape may not be sued outside this Court without obtaining the Receiver’s consent or an order of this Court prior to doing so.

25.

Properly, the Claimants in these proceedings drew this provision to my attention. Clearly, Mr Protopapas has not consented to these proceedings being brought against himself (or, for that matter, CIHL). The provision in the Receivership Order reflects the doctrine articulated in Barton v. Barbour, 104 US 126 (1881)), on which Mr Protopapas would doubtless rely. The Claimants contended, and I agree, that this “Barton” provision in the Receivership Order does not assist Mr Protopapas for reasons given by Mann J (Mann J Judgment/[124]):

One of the points that he [Mr Protopapas, in the South Carolina proceedings] takes is that the “Barton doctrine” requires that the permission of the court be obtained before suing a receiver in respect of his acts, and that therefore no action can be taken against him without the permission of the South Carolina court. Judge Wilkins [a US-law expert retained by the Claimants before Mann J] has given his opinion on the extent of the application of this doctrine, and his report is uncertain on the extent of its application. However, assuming it does apply in South Carolina, I consider that it does not stand in the way of the present proceedings because the present proceedings are governed by English law, and the whole premise of the proceedings is that the receiver has no recognition under English law. Accordingly it does not recognize the office which would otherwise give him protection. It is therefore not a bar to the relief claimed against him in these proceedings.

26.

As I shall come to describe, Mann J held that the Receivership Order was not capable of recognition in this jurisdiction. That being the case, this non-recognition is a complete answer to the “Barton” provision. Accordingly, the “Barton” provision cannot affect my holding at [23] as to this court’s personal jurisdiction over Mr Protopapas.