References: Times 04-Apr-1994, [1994] 3 All ER 180
Coram: Steyn LJ, Peter Gibson LJ and Sir Tasker Watkins
An English Court becomes seised of a case on the service of the writ. Steyn LJ: ‘the general thrust of the Dresser UK Ltd case is not only binding on us but . . . is correct’. There were no ‘exceptions to the rule that date of service marks the time when the English court becomes definitively seised of proceedings’. The ECJ in the Zelger case had ’emphasise[d] the importance of certainty in national procedural laws’, and that ‘a ‘date of service’ rule would be readily comprehensible not only in England but also in other Contracting States.’
Statutes: Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters
This case cites:
- Considered – Dresser UK -v- Falcongate Freight Management Ltd; The Duke of Yare CA ([1992] 5 CL 373, [1992] QB 502)
In England the court was first seised of a matter at the point when the proceedings were served, not when they were issued. Article 21 was metaphorically described as a ‘tie-break rule’ which operates on the basis of strict chronological . . - Cited – Siegfried Zelger -v- Sebastiano Salinitri ECJ (Europa, C-129/83, R-129/83, Bailii, [1984] EUECJ R-129/83, [1984] ECR 2397)
Article 21 of the Convention of 28 September 1968 must be interpreted as meaning that the court ‘first seised’ is the one before which the requirements for proceedings to become definitively pending are first fulfilled, such requirements to be . .
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Nussberger and Another -v- Phillips and Another (No 4) CA (Bailii, [2006] EWCA Civ 654, Times 17-Jul-06, [2006] 1 WLR 2598, Gazette 08-Jun-06)
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 – Canada Trust Co and Others -v- Stolzenberg and Others (No 2) HL (Times 17-Oct-00, House of Lords, Gazette 02-Nov-00, House of Lords, House of Lords, Bailii, [2000] UKHL 51, [2000] 4 All ER 481, [2000] 3 WLR 1376, [2002] 1 AC 1, [2001] CLC 118, [2001] IL Pr 40)
The plaintiffs alleged the involvement of the defendant in a conspiracy to defraud. He had been domiciled in England, but had moved to Germany. He denied that the UK court had jurisdiction. The court of appeal said that jurisdiction was determined . . - Cited – Phillips and Another -v- Symes and others HL (Bailii, [2008] UKHL 1, [2008] 2 All ER 537, [2008] 1 All ER (Comm) 918, [2008] 1 WLR 180, [2008] 1 CLC 29, [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 344)
Various parties had sought relief in the English courts and in Switzerland after an alleged fraud. There had been a mistake in service of the proceedings in England. The high court had dispensed with service an backdated the effect of the order to . .