![CL-2025-000010 and CL-2025-000091 - [2025] EWHC 1842 (Comm)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_WAai98v.png){kind=logo}
Sufficient interest
Sufficient interest
Given my conclusion that WRL and the Directors have failed to establish conduct of a kind which amounts to vexation and oppression for ASI purposes, it is not necessary to consider whether a sufficient interest has been established for the English court to intervene. The answer to that question is likely to be influenced by the nature of the oppressive conduct found, and it is unlikely to be helpful to consider it in the abstract or on a hypothetical basis.
- Heading
- Introduction
- THE BACKGROUND
- The Greek Proceedings
- The Commercial Court proceedings
- CLAIMS FOR FIRST PARTY CONTRACTUAL ASI RELIEF
- Clause 42 of the SHA
- Clause 33.3 and 38.5
- The Deed of Covenant executed by Mr Karonis
- QUASI-CONTRACTUAL ASI RELIEF
- ASI RELIEF ON THE THIRD PARTY CLAIM OBLIGATION BASIS
- ASI RELIEF PURSUANT TO THE VEXATIOUS AND OPPRESSIVE JURISDICTION
- The matters relied upon
- Subjective vexation and oppression
- Circumvention of the EJC
- The alleged lack of merit in the Greek Proceedings
- The alleged attempt to circumvent clause 33.1
- The remaining points
- Sufficient interest
- THE JURISDICTION AND DECLARATION ISSUES
- Service out of the claim to enforce the Clause 33 Contract
- Vexatious and oppressive ASI relief
- The claims for declarations
- Conclusions