Europa Brussels Convention – Proceedings to establish a fund to limit liability in respect of the use of a ship – Action for damages – Article 21 – Lis pendens – Identical parties – Court first seised – Identical subject-matter and cause of action – None – Article 25 – ‘Judgment’ – Article 27(2) – Refusal to recognise.
The subject matter of the two sets of proceedings was a pipeline owned by Maersk damaged by W de Boer’s vessel. The claim in the Netherlands was for a declaration that liability was limited under an international Convention and Dutch legislative provisions which gave effect to it. The later claim in Denmark was for compensation.
Held: ‘ . . even if it be assumed that the facts underlying the two sets of proceedings are identical, the legal rule which forms the basis of each of those applications is different. . . The action for damages is based on the law governing non-contractual liability, whereas the application for the establishment of a liability limitation fund is based on the 1957 Convention and the Netherlands legislation which gives effect to it.’
Citations:
C-39/02, [2004] EUECJ C-39/02, [2005] 1 Lloyds Rep 210, [2004] ECR I-9657, [2005] 1 CLC 479, [2004] ECR I-7007
Links:
Jurisdiction:
European
Cited by:
Cited – Olafsson v Foreign and Commonwealth Office QBD 22-Oct-2009
The claimant sought damages after the defendant had negligently failed to arrange for the service of the claimant’s defamation proceedings on a defendant in Iceland leaving the action time barred.
Held: The Claimant had not acted unreasonably . .
Cited – Wright v Granath QBD 16-Jan-2020
Defamation across borders – Jurisdiction
The claimant began an action for defamation in an online publication. The Norwegian resident defendant had begun an action there seeking a declaration negating liability. The Court was now asked by the defendant whether under Lugano, the UK action . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
European
Updated: 14 October 2022; Ref: scu.216587
