Article 50 and the Brussels Regulation

With Article 50 now triggered, amongst many other negotiations, attention will turn to the Brussels I Regulation. Rather than setting alarm bells ringing, this article by Sara Masters QC and Belinda McRae sets out three steps, based on previous examples of EU negotiations, of how the UK Government should assuage fears of upheaval in the system of commercial dispute resolution following Brexit.

The full article is here.

Anti-suit application grounded: Magellan Spirit [2016] EWHC 454 (Comm)

Three members of 20 Essex Street were involved on both sides of a recent application for an anti-suit injunction in Magellan Spirit ApS v Vitol SA [2016] EWHC 454 (Comm).  The central issue in the case was whether there was an agreement conferring jurisdiction on the English High Court for the purposes of, among other things, the Lugano Convention.

In refusing the anti-suit injunction, Leggatt J held that even if a written consensus could  satisfy Article 23 of the Lugano Convention, it was not enough for an anti-suit injunction.   This is also a case in which delay in applying for an anti-suit injunction was a problem for the applicants (see too our post on Ecobank Transnational v Tanoh).  Continue reading

Israeli will dispute not to be heard in England: Winkler v Shamoon [2016] EWHC 217 (Ch)

The Chancery Division’s lengthy judgment earlier this week in a dispute between the legatees of a billionaire Israeli businessman (Mr Shamoon) makes interesting reading.  The result is that the English court would not take jurisdiction over a dispute about whether certain shares were to be treated as part of Mr Shamoon’s estate.

As well as covering specific points on the scope of the succession exception in Regulation 44/2001 (Brussels I), the judgment contains useful guidance on general points notably, what constitutes submission to the jurisdiction (at common law and under the Regulation). Continue reading