Evialis S.A. v S.I.A.T. and Others

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeAndrew Smith J
Judgment Date16 April 2003
Neutral Citation[2003] EWHC 863 (Comm)
CourtQueen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
Date16 April 2003

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
22 cases
  • "The Alexandros T" and Others
    • United Kingdom
    • Supreme Court
    • 6 November 2013
    ...whether they have the same cause and the same object. In so far as Andrew Smith J treated the question as a broader one in Evialis SA v SIAT [2003] 2 Lloyd's Rep 377 I respectfully disagree with him, although, as Beatson J observed in Sinco at para 50, Evialis was distinguishable on the fac......
  • Ferrexpo AG v Gilson Investments Ltd and Ors
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • 3 April 2012
    ...any counterclaim or cross-claim: Briggs & Rees (loc cit) at para 2–242.) For the reasons that I sought to explain in Evialis v SIAT, [2003] EWHC 863 (Comm) at paras 116 to 130, I think that generally the proper approach is to look at the proceedings as a whole and to ask what is the cen......
  • Trappit S.A. v American Express Europe LLC
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 19 May 2021
    ...i.e. to discourage a multiplicity of proceedings: Recital (15) of the Brussels Regulation; see also Evialis SA v SIAT and others [2003] EWHC 863 (Comm), Andrew Smith J at [127], citing the dictum of Saville LJ in ‘The Happy Fellow’ [1998] 1 Lloyd's Rep 13 at 17–18.” Concurrent Proceedings ......
  • Royal Bank of Canada v Cooperative Centrale Raiffeisen-Boorenleenbank Binding Authority
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 23 January 2004
  • Get Started for Free
1 firm's commentaries
2 books & journal articles
  • Pleading and proving foreign law in Australia.
    • Australia
    • Melbourne University Law Review Vol. 31 No. 2, August 2007
    • 1 August 2007
    ...construction of documents: see, eg, King v Brandywine Reinsurance Co [2005] 1 Lloyd's Rep 655, 669-70 (Waller LJ); Evialis SAv SIAT [2003] 2 Lloyd's Rep 377, 387 (Andrew Smith J). On the application of foreign law more generally: see, eg, Glencore International AG v Metro Trading Internatio......
  • ENFORCING ENGLISH JURISDICTION CLAUSES IN BILLS OF LADING
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2006, December 2006
    • 1 December 2006
    ...Hijazy (The Kribi)[2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 76. See Adrian Briggs, “Anti-European Teeth for Choice of Court Clauses”[1994] LMCLQ 158. 35 [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 377. 36 Case 7W 1461/98 Re Lifting A Stay of Proceedings[1999] ILPr 291, a decision of the Court of Appeal of Munich, Germany, and Case 7 ......