Tom Whitehead

Tom Whitehead of St Philips Stone Chambers was called to the Bar in 2002. He is recommended as a leading junior barrister in Chambers & Partners UK Bar and the Legal 500. He has particular experience of jurisdiction disputes and the application of the Judgments Regulation. Cases of note include The Alexandros T [2013] UKSC 70 [2014] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 223 which is the leading case in England on Article 27 of the Judgments Regulation and addresses a variety of important points relating to challenging the jurisdiction of the English Courts (see also on scope of settlement and jurisdiction agreements: [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 162 (Burton J); [2014] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 544 (CA) and on ability of servants or agents to rely upon a settlement agreement and the availability of specific performance and injunctions under the Judgments Regulation: [2014] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 579 (Flaux J)); The Channel Ranger [2015] 2 WLR 43 (CA) which is a recent decision of the Court of Appeal concerning incorporation by reference of jurisdiction clauses and the correction of mistakes by way of interpretation rather than rectification; The New Flamenco [2014] EWHC 1547 (Comm); [2014] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 230 concerning damages and mitigation of loss (appeal pending 2015); The Barito [2013] EWHC 1240 (Comm); [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 421 concerning Section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996; and The Wadi Sudr [2009] EWCA Civ 1397 [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 193, a leading case on recognition in England & Wales under the Judgments Regulation of judgments alleged to have been obtained in breach of a London arbitration agreement.
Contributed to

9

Brussels I (recast)—parallel proceedings (art 29)
Practice Note

This Practice Note considers the provisions in Article 29 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) which deal with multiple proceedings, specifically parallel proceedings involving the same cause of action and the same parties. The Practice Note considers how the courts deal with these types of proceedings and examples of how such proceedings are dealt with in practice are provided.

Brussels I (recast)—related proceedings (art 30)
Practice Note

This Practice Note considers the position where related proceedings have been commenced in different jurisdictions within the EU and how the courts of the EU Member States will with them. Related proceedings are one type of multiple proceedings, they are proceedings where the proceedings are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments which would result if separate proceedings were pursued. This Practice Note explains the meaning of ‘related proceedings’ as set out in Article 30 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) and explores the different issues the courts may consider when exercising their discretion to stay proceedings. Other types of multiple proceedings are known as Parallel proceedings or lis pendens and are dealt with in Article 29 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast).

Court order for an application for the court to not exercise jurisdiction under art 30.2 of Brussels I (recast)
Precedent

This Precedent and associated Drafting Note provide a court order for use in an application to stay proceedings under Brussels I (recast), article 30.2 where the court is being ask not to exercise its jurisdiction to try a claim which is the subject of two or more related proceedings. It should be used in conjunction with the application notice and witness statement precedents for the application.

Court order for an application to stay proceedings under art 30.1 of Brussels I (recast)
Precedent

This Precedent and Drafting Notes provide a court order for use in an application to stay proceedings under Article 30 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). This is the relevant article when dealing with two or more related proceedings. It should be used in conjunction with the application notice and witness statement precedents for the application.

Draft order for an application to stay proceedings under art 29 of Brussels I (Recast)
Precedent

This Precedent is a draft order for a stay of proceedings pursuant to art 29 of Brussels I (recast). It is to be used where an application is made to stay proceedings to enable a court in another EU Member State to determine whether it has jurisdiction to hear the dispute between the parties on the basis that it was commenced in that court first and that the two sets of proceedings involve the same parties and cause(s) of action. A draft of the order must be supplied at the hearing of the application. Precedents for an application notice an supporting witness statement are also available. Note: such a stay may not need to be made if there is an exclusive jurisdiction agreement providing for the English court to have jurisdiction due to the provisions in art 31(2) of Brussels I (recast).

Drafting note for application for stay under art 29 of Brussels I (recast)
Precedent

This Drafting Note gives guidance on how to complete Form N244 when making an application to stay proceedings under art 29 of Brussels I (recast) for the purposes of enabling the first court seized to determined whether it has jurisdiction.

Drafting note for application for stay under art 30 of Brussels I (recast)
Precedent

This Drafting Note gives guidance on how to complete Form N244 when making an application to stay proceedings under art 29 of Brussels I (recast) for the purposes of enabling the first court seized to determined whether it has jurisdiction.

Witness statement in support of application for a stay under art 29 of Brussels I (recast)
Precedent

This Precedent is a witness statement supporting an application for an order to stay proceedings under art 29 of Brussels I (recast) where another court is the first court seized and it has yet to determine whether it has jurisdiction. Such a stay may not need to be made if there is an exclusive jurisdiction agreement providing for the English court to have jurisdiction due to the provisions in art 31(2) of Brussels I (recast).

Witness statement in support of application for stay under art 30 of Brussels I (recast)
Precedent

This Precedent and Drafting Note provides a witness statement supporting an application for an order to stay proceedings under art 30 of Brussels I (recast) where another court is the first court seized and it has yet to determine whether it has jurisdiction. Such a stay may not need to be made if there is an exclusive jurisdiction agreement providing for the English court to have jurisdiction due to the provisions in art 31(2) of Brussels I (recast).

Practice areas

Panel

  • Specialist Panel

Education

  • Worcester College, Oxford. BA Jurisprudence (1st Class), BCL

If you expected to see yourself on this page, click here.