An application was made to stay proceedings to await the decision of a foreign court. At first instance, Moore-Bick J had held that a Court has an interest in deciding the order in which related proceedings should be tried ‘not only because the existence of concurrent proceedings may give rise to undesirable consequences in the form of inconsistent decisions, but also because the outcome of one set of proceedings may have an important effect on the conduct of the other’ and the court may manage the order in which the proceedings are heard. Case management is appropriate even where the proceedings are taking place between different parties in different jurisdictions, but before an action which has been properly commenced here is stayed pending the outcome of proceedings between different persons in another jurisdiction is granted, the defendant must show ‘very strong reasons for doing so and the benefits which are likely to result from doing so clearly outweigh any disadvantage to the plaintiff’
Held: The appeal failed. Counsel had accepted ‘that the grant of stays such as this would be a rarity, account always being taken of the legitimate interests of plaintiffs and the requirement that there should be no prejudice to plaintiffs beyond that which the interest of justice were thought to justify.’
Lord Bingham CJ
Times 20-Jul-1999,  EWCA Civ 1703,  2 Lloyd’s Rep 567,  2 All ER 679,  2 LLR 567,  2 All ER (Comm) 174,  1 WLR 173
England and Wales
Cited – National Westminster Bank v Utrecht-America Finance Company CA 10-May-2001
An agreement between the parties for assignment or novation of a credit agreement, contained a ‘take out’ agreement (‘TOA’). The defendant began proceedings in California to rescind the agreement, and the claimants obtained summary judgement under . .
Cited – Curtis and Another v Lockheed Martin UK Holdings Ltd ComC 20-Feb-2008
Application for stay pending completion of proceedings in Italy. . .
Cited – Clyde and Co Llp and Another v Winkelhof QBD 22-Mar-2011
The claimant firm of solicitors sought an order requiring the defendant to amend her employment tribunal claim so as to accord with the partnership agreement to which she was party, and to submit to arbitration. The defendant said that statutory . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 January 2021; Ref: scu.146618