The defendants sought a stay of the proceedings on the ground that there were related actions already in existence in Germany.
Held: Rix LJ said:
As to article 27, Rix LJ said: ‘where the ‘same cause of action’ or the ‘same parties’ are introduced only by way of service, or amendment, the relevant proceedings are only ‘brought’ at the time of such service or amendment, not at the time of institution of the original, unamended, proceedings . . It is possible that the introduction of entirely new causes of action or parties is to be recognised as the bringing of entirely new proceedings, so that the timing of seisin . . has to be looked at from that point of view, as occurs for the purposes of Article 27.’
. . And ‘Even so, it is not clear to me that in this connection article 27 and article 28 work in the same way: for article 27 is worded in terms of the bringing of actions with the same parties and the same cause of action . . whereas Article 28 is worded in terms of the pendency of related actions . . That emphasises that the article 28 question is asked with relation to pending actions, and not, as the article 27 question is asked, with relation to the bringing of actions. In any event, the judge is . . mistaken to think that any amendment is analogous to the bringing of new causes of action or the addition or substitution of new parties.’
Mummery, Rix, Wilson LJJ
 EWCA Civ 622,  2 Lloyd’s Rep 387
England and Wales
Appeal from – FKI Engineering Ltd and Another v Stribog Ltd ComC 21-May-2010
The defendant sought a stay under the Regulation, saying that the matter was already being litigated in Germany. . .
Cited – Blue Nile Shipping Co Ltd; Mohamed Kamal Ali Khalil v Iguana Shipping and Finance Inc Owners of the Ship Happy Fellow CA 25-Jul-1997
A French collision action preceded English proceedings by one of the owners to limit his liability. The parties disputed whether the fact that that owner subsequently admitted liability in France so that the only remaining issue was that of . .
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 . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 March 2021; Ref: scu.440186