- Application of modified universalism where Article 4 of Brussels I (recast) is engaged (WWRT v Tyshchenko)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What did the court decide?
- I. Application to stay proceedings
- Modified universalism
- Article 34 of Brussels I (recast)
- Forum non conveniens
- II. Full and frank disclosure
- III. Approach to foreign law experts
- Court details
Dispute Resolution analysis: Mrs Justice Bacon dismissed the defendants’ jurisdiction challenge, concluding that jurisdiction under Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 (Brussels I (recast)) cannot be avoided by a common law stay on the basis of modified universalism and that a stay could not be granted by analogy with Article 34 of Brussels I (recast) or on the basis of forum non conveniens. In addition, the court provided guidance on the duty of full and frank disclosure and the correct approach to foreign law experts giving evidence in the English courts. Written by Maria Kennedy, barrister at Twenty Essex.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial