A French collision action preceded English proceedings by one of the owners to limit his liability. The parties disputed whether the fact that that owner subsequently admitted liability in France so that the only remaining issue was that of limitation meant that the English court was first seised.
Held: The French court was first seised, although limitation had not originally been an issue in that court. Saville LJ discussed articles 21 and 22, saying: ‘article 21 is concerned with proceedings and article 22 with actions. The questions are whether the proceedings involve the same cause or object or whether the actions are related. It is thus a misreading of the Convention to ask which court is first seised of issues which are or might be raised within the proceedings or actions. If such were the case, then the article would achieve precisely the opposite of their intended purpose which is, to achieve the proper administration of justice within the community ‘ It is a misreading of Article 28 to ask which court is first seised of ‘issues’.
 EWCA Civ 2192,  1 Lloyd’s Rep 13
England and Wales
Cited – Stribog Ltd v FKI Engineering Ltd CA 25-May-2011
The defendants sought a stay of the proceedings on the ground that there were related actions already in existence in Germany.
Held: Rix LJ said:
As to article 27, Rix LJ said: ‘where the ‘same cause of action’ or the ‘same parties’ are . .
Cited – Starlight Shipping Co v Allianz Marine and Aviation Versicherungs Ag and Others CA 20-Dec-2012
The Alexander T, owned by the appellant and insured by the respondents was a total loss. The insurers resisted payment, the appellant came to allege improperly, and the parties had settled the claim on full payment under a Tomlin Order. The owners . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 April 2021; Ref: scu.142589