Public Law

EU buffs will be interested in a new English Court of Appeal decision impacting on how a party might win the ‘race’ to their preferred national court. The Court was asked to decide which court was “first seised” of a claim – that is which country’s courts can deal with the case when parties have taken the same dispute to courts in different member states – where an amendment to an existing claim in another EU national court brings in an issue raised by English proceedings but before an application has been made to the English court to to stay (or sist) proceedings in England. The Court of Appeal decided that the date of the application for a stay is the relevant time for determining which country is first seised. This case clarifies the application of Article 28 of the Brussels Regulation when claims have been amended, an issue on which there is no prior authority (Stribog Ltd v FKI Engineering Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 622 (25 May 2011).

Christine O'Neill

Partner & Chairman at Brodies LLP
Christine is Chairman of Brodies LLP and leads our Public Law Litigation and Parliamentary team. She has considerable experience of parliamentary and public law work and has a special interest in administrative law, devolution and human rights. Christine has advised variety of clients on legislative procedure in the Scottish Parliament, particularly in relation to alcohol and tobacco regulation.
Christine O'Neill

Latest posts by Christine O'Neill (see all)