Site icon swarb.co.uk

Tavoulareas v Tsavliris: CA 5 Feb 2004

The court held that Greek proceedings required service for the purposes of establishing seisin, and therefore priority of jurisdiction. Mance LJ said: ‘Professor Antapassis says that, as a matter of Greek domestic law, the effect of art. 221 is that proceedings may be considered pending retrospectively from the date of filing of the writ, once service has been effected . . However, it is impossible to accept that the Greek proceedings were, for the purposes of art. 21 of the Brussels Convention, definitively pending from Nov. 8, 2001 (when they were filed). Article 21 requires a simple chronological approach, which is inconsistent with retrospectivity. That is obvious in principle, and was stated in Dresser, where Lord Justice Bingham said: ‘Some tie-break rule was necessary, and that adopted by the Convention was a simple test of chronological priority.”

Judges:

The Hon Mr Justice Evans-Lombe, Lord Justice Mance, Lord Justice Thorpe

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 48, [2004] 1 Lloyds Rep 445

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Brussels Convention 21

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoTavoulareas v Tsavliris and others ComC 21-Mar-2003
. .

Cited by:

See AlsoTavoulareas v Tsavliris and Another ComC 12-Oct-2005
. .
See AlsoTavoulareas v Alexander G Tsavliris and Sons Maritime Company ComC 24-Nov-2005
. .
See AlsoTavoulareas v Tsavliris and others ComC 9-Mar-2006
Formal recognition of judgment from Greek court. . .
CitedNussberger 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 . .
CitedThum v Thum FC 21-Oct-2016
No abuse of process in service error
The husband claimed that the W was guilty of abuse of process by issuing the divorce petion, but then not serving it for many months in an attempt to gain a tactical jurisdictional advantage under Brussels II.
Held: H’s application was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.192641

Exit mobile version