ECJ Brussels Convention – Territorial scope of the Brussels Convention – Article 2 – Jurisdiction – Accident which occurred in a non – Contracting State – Personal injury – Action brought in a Contracting State against a person domiciled in that State and other defendants domiciled in a non – Contracting State – Forum non conveniens – Incompatibility with the Brussels Convention.
Article 2 of the Brussels Convention ‘should be interpreted in such a way as to enable a normally well-informed defendant reasonably to foresee before which courts . . he may be sued.’ The Court also mentioned the requirement of ‘predictability of the rules of jurisdiction’ in the Convention, and to ‘the principle of legal certainty, which is the basis of the Convention.’
The English court could not decline jurisdiction: ‘application of the forum non conveniens doctrine, which allows the court seised a wide discretion as regards the question whether a foreign court would be a more appropriate forum for the trial of an action, is liable to undermine the predictability of the rules of jurisdiction laid down by the Brussels Convention, in particular that of Article 2, and consequently to undermine the principle of legal certainty, which is the basis of the Convention. . . the Brussels Convention precludes a court of a contracting state from declining the jurisdiction conferred on it by Article 2 of that Convention on the ground that a court of a non-contracting state would be a more appropriate forum for the trial of the action, even if the jurisdiction of no other contracting state is in issue or the proceedings have no connecting factors to any other contracting state’.
C-281/02, [2005] EUECJ C-281/02, Times 09-Mar-2005, [2005] ILPr 25, [2005] ECR I-553, [2005] 2 All ER (Comm) 577, [2005] QB 801, [2005] 1 CMLR 43, [2005] 1 Lloyds Rep 452, [2005] 1 CLC 246, [2005] 2 WLR 942, [2005] ECR I-1383
Bailii
Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001
European
Citing:
Reference from – Owusu v Jackson, Mammee Bay Resorts Limited etc CA 19-Jun-2002
Defendants appealed against an order refusing an order to restrain service of the proceedings on certain defendants outwith the jurisdiction. The claimant was seriously injured holidaying at a resort managed by the several defendants in Jamaica in . .
Cited by:
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 – 889457 Alberta Inc v Katanga Mining Ltd and others ComC 5-Nov-2008
The parties had set out on a joint venture with deeds providing for control of the shareholdings in each other. The claimant asserted a breach of the deed and sought a remedy. The first defendant company, incorporated in Bermuda argued that the . .
Cited – Pacific International Sports Clubs Ltd v Soccer Marketing International Ltd and Others ChD 24-Jul-2009
The parties disputed ownership of shares in the football club Dynamo Kiev. Claims were to be made under Ukrainian company law and in equity. The claimant (a company registered in Mauritius) sought to proceed here. The defendants (largely companies . .
Cited – Lucasfilm Ltd and Others v Ainsworth and Another SC 27-Jul-2011
The claimant had produced the Star War films which made use of props, in particular a ‘Stormtrooper’ helmet designed by the defendant. The defendant had then himself distributed models of the designs he had created. The appellant obtained judgment . .
Cited – High Tech International Ag and others v Deripaska QBD 20-Dec-2006
The clamants brought actions for damages for torts said to have been committed by the defendants in Russia. They said that the defendant was domiciled within the jurisdiction under the EU Regulation.
Held: Domicile for the issue of . .
Cited – A v A and another (Children) (Children: Habitual Residence) (Reunite International Child Abduction Centre intervening) SC 9-Sep-2013
Acquisition of Habitual Residence
Habitual residence can in principle be lost and another habitual residence acquired on the same day.
Held: The provisions giving the courts of a member state jurisdiction also apply where there is an alternative jurisdiction in a non-member . .
Distinguished – Mittal v Mittal CA 18-Oct-2013
The parties were born and lived in India and were Hindu. They came to the UK but after separation, returned to India, leaving no assets here. H began divorce proceedings in India, but W then issued a petition here. She now appealed against on order . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
European, Jurisdiction
Leading Case
Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.223250