Sami Zouari vs Ana Maria Matos Soares Bilreiro Paixao – High Court – [2024] EWHC 3298 (KB) – Case Summary

Introduction

The High Court has recently delivered a significant ruling in the case of Sami Zouari vs Ana Maria Matos Soares Bilreiro Paixao, addressing the issue of jurisdiction in a cross-border property dispute. The case involved a breach of a promissory agreement for the sale of a property in Portugal, with proceedings initiated both in England and Portugal.

Background

The dispute originated in May 2022 when Mr Sami Zouari, a British and French national residing in Portugal, entered into an agreement with Ms Ana Maria Paixao and her family for the sale and construction of a villa in Sintra, Portugal. The Portuguese Defendants, including Ms Paixao, later sought to cancel the agreement, leading Mr Zouari to initiate legal proceedings in Portugal for specific performance or compensation under Portuguese law.

Ms Paixao, a Portuguese national living in London, became the sole defendant in the English claim. Despite efforts to serve her with the Portuguese proceedings, she was unresponsive, prompting Mr Zouari to also pursue an English claim for conspiracy and unjust enrichment.

Jurisdictional Challenge

Ms Paixao applied to the High Court to declare that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the English claim or, alternatively, to strike it out as an abuse of process. She argued that the dispute was firmly rooted in Portugal, where the property and agreement were located, and that the Portuguese courts were the appropriate forum.

Court's Analysis

The court considered whether England or Portugal was the more appropriate forum for the trial. It found that Portugal was clearly the more suitable jurisdiction, given the location of the property, the agreement, and the witnesses, all of whom were connected to Portugal. The court noted that the English claim was founded on the same facts as the Portuguese claim and that the causes of action did not offer a significant advantage in England.

Decision

The High Court ruled that it would not exercise its jurisdiction over the English claim and decided to stay the proceedings, allowing the action to proceed in Portugal. The court acknowledged the Claimant's offer to stay the English claim pending the outcome of the Portuguese proceedings, recognising Portugal as an available forum.

Abuse of Process Argument

The court also addressed the abuse of process argument, considering the Claimant's motivation for initiating the English claim due to difficulties in serving Ms Paixao in Portugal. It found that the Claimant's strategy was reasonable under the circumstances and declined to strike out the claim as an abuse of process.

Conclusion

This case underscores the importance of jurisdictional considerations in cross-border disputes and the challenges of concurrent proceedings in different jurisdictions. The ruling highlights the court's approach to ensuring that justice is served in the most appropriate forum.

Learn More

Explore essential areas of UK housing law, including landlord and tenant responsibilities, property standards, and enforcement powers.