The claimants sought a declaration as against the residuary beneficiaries (wife and daughter) under the will, saying that the claimants had a beneficial interest in company shares within the estate. The defendants fild acknowledgments of service but asserting expressly that they did not submit to the jurisdiction of the court. The claimants said that the acknowledgment was enough to provide jurisdiction.
Held: The declaration was granted. Acknowledgment in the form used was not to be taken as the defendant having entered. It would undermine the purpose of the of Regulation to read national procedural rules so as to compel a defendant to enter an appearance. Whether a defendant had in fact entered an appearance depended on whether there had in fact been a submission to the jurisdiction according to the local law. Also the claim was outside Regulation (EC) 44/2001 because its main subject matter was ‘succession’ within article 1(2)(a) of the Regulation.
Henry Carr J
[2016] EWHC 217 (Ch), [2016] WLR(D) 101
Bailii, WLRD
Civil Procedure Rules 11(2), Regulation (EC) 44/2001 1(2)(a) 24
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Elefanten Schuh Gmbh v Pierre Jacqmain ECJ 24-Jun-1981
ECJ 1. Article 18 of the convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters applies even where the parties have by agreement designated a court which . .
Cited – Harada Limited (T/A Chequepoint) v Turner CA 2-Dec-2003
Applications for leave to appeal. The claimant had alleged unfair dismissal. The respondent denied jurisdiction. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Jurisdiction, Wills and Probate, European
Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.560278