Peter Tavoulareas v Alexander G Tsavliris and Sons Maritime Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 November 2005 |
| Neutral Citation | [2005] EWHC 2643 (Comm) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court) |
| Docket Number | Case No: 2004 FOLIO 675 |
| Date | 24 November 2005 |
[2005] EWHC 2643 (Comm)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
COMMERCIAL COURT
Mr Justice andrew Smith
Case No: 2004 FOLIO 675
Mr Philip Shepherd QC (instructed by Messrs Howe and Keates) for the Claimant
Mr Peter Irvin (instructed by Constant & Constant) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 11 November 2005
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
Mr. Justice Andrew Smith
Mr Justice Andrew Smith:
This judgment arises from an application made by Alexander G Tsavliris and Sons Maritime Company ("AGT Co") in what I called "the second action" in my judgment [2005] EWHC 2140 (Comm). In paragraph 70 of that judgment I said that I would invite further submissions about one issue before determining the application. I heard such submissions on 11 November 2005.
The issue was this: whether section 27 of the Brussels Regulation applies when the proceedings in the court first seised (here the Greek court: I use the terminology of my previous judgment) have proceeded to judgment at first instance (although there is still the possibility of an appeal) between the time when the proceedings were brought in the court second seised, this court, and the time when the court second seised determines whether it should decline jurisdiction.
The relevant dates are these. The proceedings in the Greek court were brought on 8 November 2001. The second action was brought by Mr Tavoulareas on 16 August 2004, and on 4 October 2004 AGT Co, the defendant in the second action, applied for a declaration under article 27 that this court has no jurisdiction. On 22 October 2004 the Greek court published its judgment. It is common ground that the time within which Mr Tavoulareas can appeal against that judgment has not yet expired.
The effect of my decision in [2005] EWHC 2140 (Comm) is that before 22 October 2004 this court would have been obliged under article 27 of the Brussels Regulation to decline jurisdiction in the second action. The question is whether that position altered when the Greek court gave judgment. Mr Shepherd, representing Mr Tavoulareas, submits that it did and, and Mr Irvin for AGT Co argues that the position remained the same.
Mr Shepherd's argument is that article 27 applies only when there are concurrent proceedings before the courts of different Contracting States, and that once there was judgment in the Greek proceedings there are current proceedings only in this court. He points out that article 27 is within Chapter II of the Regulation, which deals with Jurisdiction, and in section 9 of that Chapter, which deals with "lis pendens – related actions". Chapter III of the Regulation is headed "Recognition and Enforcement" and deals with the position after judgment has been given by a court or tribunal of a Member State. Mr Shepherd submits that the structure of the Regulation, reflecting that of the Brussels Convention, is that Chapter II directs the Court of a Member State if there is a related action still proceeding before a court of another Member State and Chapter III deals with the position if the related action has proceeded to judgment.
It is beyond argument, and Mr Irvin does not dispute, that this submission is broadly correct. The thinking behind article 21 of the Convention, reflected in article 27 of the Regulation, is described in the Jenard Report thus: "As there may be several concurrent international jurisdictions, and the courts of different States may properly be seised of a matter …, it appears necessary to regulate the question of lis pendens".
It is also clear that the judgment of the Greek court of 22 October 2004 is a "judgment" within the meaning of Chapter III notwithstanding Mr Tavoulareas is still entitled to appeal against it. Mr Irvin does not suggest otherwise and does not rely upon the fact that Mr Tavoulareas could bring an appeal.
Mr Irvin's argument is that the question whether or not there are concurrent proceedings is to be determined by reference to the position when the proceedings were brought before the court second seised. Mr Irvin accepts that if at that time the action in the court first seised has proceeded to judgment, article 27 has no application, but he submits that if at that time the proceedings in the court first seised have not proceeded to judgment and are still continuing, then any action in a court of another Member State to which article 27 applies is improperly brought and the obligation upon that court to decline jurisdiction does not evaporate if and when judgment is given by the court first seised. He argues that it would be odd and surprising if the court second seised were freed of its obligation to decline jurisdiction in proceedings improperly brought before it simply because judgment is given in other proceedings.
I cannot accept this submission. Indeed, the implications of Mr Irvin's submission are, to my mind, more surprising: that the court would be obliged to decline jurisdiction in the proceedings before it, notwithstanding it would be open to the claimants to start new and identical proceedings. It would be a pointless exercise for the court to decline jurisdiction unless it be suggested that there is merit in an inflexible rule that claimants should be required to waste time and costs in this way, in order to mark the fact that they should not have brought the proceedings. After all, if there were such a rule, it would operate even if the claimants were unaware of the proceedings in the court first seised when they brought their proceedings elsewhere. I decline so to interpret article 27.
Mr Irvin relies upon the way that the matter is put in Briggs and Rees, Civil Judgments and Jurisdiction, 4 th Ed (2005) at para 2–205: "If the foreign court was seised first, but is no longer seised when the English proceedings are instituted, there appears to be no bar to the exercise of jurisdiction by the English court" (emphasis added). Briggs and Rees cite two authorities in support of this. One is the decision of the Court of Appeal in Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Prudential Insurance Co of America, [2003] 1 WLR 2295. There Chadwick LJ, with whom the other members of the Court agreed, said this (at para 26): "…I find nothing in article 21 [of the Brussels Convention] to suggest that that article is intended to require a court in one contracting state to stay its proceedings or decline jurisdiction unless there is a concurrente action involving the same cause of action and between the same parties...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Celtic Atlantic Salmon (Killary) Ltd v Aller Acqua (Ireland) Ltd and Another
...2007/41/8478 2007 IESC 11 EEC REG 44/2001 CHAP 3 EEC REG 44/2001 ART 27 TAVOULAREAS v ALEXANDER G TSAVLIRIS & SONS MARITIME CO (NO 2) 2005 EWHC 2643 (COMM) 2006 1 AER (COMM) 130 2005 2 CLC 848 LOUGH NEAGH EXPLORATION LTD v MORRICE & ANOR 1999 NI 258 BRIGGS & REES CIVIL JURISDICTION AND JUD......
-
AA v BB
...and have no application when a party has properly discontinued the first set of proceedings"; and Tavoulareas v Tsavliris [2005] EWHC 2643 (Comm) [2006] 1 All ER (Comm) 30, in which Andrew Smith J decided that article 27 of Brussels I: "applies where there are concurrent proceedings at the......
-
Derrick Tate v Allianz Iard SA (a company incorporated under the laws of France)
...the court first seised have been terminated by judgment. There must be a concurrent, extant, action: see Tavoulareas v. Tsavliris [2005] EWHC 2643 (Comm.), citing Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v. Prudential Insurance Co of America [2003] 1 WLR 2295; and Dicey, Morris & Collins at 54 Thus in......
-
Tavoulareas v Tsavliris and Others (No 2) ; Tavoulareas v AG Tsavliris & Sons Maritime Company
...upon that issue." 34 Andrew Smith J heard further argument on 11 November 2005. On 24 November 2005 he gave a second judgment, [2005] EWHC 2643 (COMM). He concluded that Article 27 applies only where there are concurrent proceedings at the time when the court not first seised makes its det......