||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 232 (May)
|| EWHC 1160 (Comm)
||Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court
||Mark Templeman QC and Emily Wood (instructed by Davis and Co) for the claimants.
||Barry Isaacs and Stephen Robins (instructed by Pinsent Mason LLP) for the defendant.
||21 May 2010
Conflict of laws - Jurisdiction - Challenge to jurisdiction - Defendants bringing proceedings in Germany in response to claimant issuing proceedings in United States - Claimants bringing action in United Kingdom - Defendants seeking stay of UK proceedings on grounds that proceedings related to German proceedings and German court first seized of matter - Whether German court t first seized of matte - Whether actions being related - Whether UK proceedings should be stayed - Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001, art 28.
Conflict of laws Jurisdiction. The Commercial Court held, relying on case law relating to amendment of pleadings, that subsequent new additional claims to a German action, after the issue of an action in the United Kingdom, did not render the German court the court first seized of the matter for the purposes of art 28 of Council Regulation (EC) 44-2001 (on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters).
- An Official transcript is the final version of the judgment prepared by shorthand writers. LexisLibrary contains all judgments from the High Court and aboveView Judgment
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports