The claimant Austrian company had for many years sold goods to the defendant an Italian company. Eventually it presented a claim before the court in Italy. Having obtained judgement, it later sought to enforce the order through the Austrian court relying upon a choice of forum term to that effect in the trading terms.
Held: The country first seised of the matter retained jurisdiction in preference to a country of choice under the contract. A national court could refer to the European court a request for interpretation of the Brussels Convention where it thought this necessary, and even though it had not yet made an assessment of the merits of the case. Such Conventions are based on the mutual trust and confidence which each contracting state accords to the legal systems and judicial institutions of the other contracting states. A court of a Member State on which exclusive jurisdiction has been conferred pursuant to article 23 cannot issue an injunction to restrain a party from prosecuting proceedings before a court of another Member State if that court was first seised of the dispute.
Judges:
V Skouris, P
Citations:
C-116/02, Times 12-Dec-2003, [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 222, [2003] EUECJ C-116/02, [2003] ECR I-14693, [2005] 1 QB 1, [2003] ECR 14, [2004] 3 WLR 1070, [2004] ILPr 7, [2005] All ER (EC) 517, [2005] 1 All ER (Comm) 538
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
European
Cited by:
Cited – Speed Investments Ltd and Another v Formula One Holdings Limited and Others (No 2) ChD 20-Jul-2004
The defendants sought a stay of the action, arguing that proceedings had begun first in Switzerland.
Held: An English court became seised of an action for the purposes of the Convention at the time when the proceedings were served. Under the . .
Cited – OT Africa Line Ltd v Magic Sportswear Corporation and others CA 13-Jun-2005
The parties to a contract had agreed that the proper law for the contract was England. One party commenced proceedings in Canada, and the courts of Canada had accepted jurisdiction as the most appropriate and convenient forum to resolve the dispute. . .
Cited – Nussberger and Another v Phillips and Another (No 4) CA 19-May-2006
A claim was issued in London in December 2004, and then served in part in Switzerland in January 2005. One copy was removed from the bundle by a Swiss official, seeing that it had been marked ‘Nor for service out of the jurisdiction.’ That marking . .
Cited – West Tankers Inc v Ras Riunione Adriatica Di Sicurta Spa and others (The Front Comor) HL 21-Feb-2007
A ship had foundered, and the owners disputed their insurance claim. The policy provided for arbitration in London, and one party sought an order to prevent the other commencing proceedings in another EU state in breach of the arbitration agreement. . .
Cited – Allianz Spa (Anciennement Riunione Adriatica Di Sicurta) v West Tankers Inc (‘the Front Comor’) ECJ 10-Feb-2009
ECJ (Judgment) A West Tankers ship damaged a jetty in Syracuse. An agreement provided for an arbitration in London. The insurers having paid out brought a subrogated action in Italy. West Tankers sought an order . .
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 . .
Cited – AMT Futures Ltd v Marzillier and Others SC 1-Mar-2017
AMT entered into many financial services agreements providing for exclusive EW jurisdiction. It now sought to restrain the defendant German lawyers from encouraging litigation in Germany saying that induced breaches of the contracts. It also sought . .
Cited – AMT Futures Ltd v Marzillier and Others SC 1-Mar-2017
AMT entered into many financial services agreements providing for exclusive EW jurisdiction. It now sought to restrain the defendant German lawyers from encouraging litigation in Germany saying that induced breaches of the contracts. It also sought . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Jurisdiction, Contract
Updated: 03 February 2022; Ref: scu.189894