- Article 27 in personality rights claims—Lugano’s swansong? (Wright v Granath)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- How might a similar case which commences post-IP completion day likely pan out (in jurisdictional terms)?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- The English and Norwegian claims were not the same cause of action for the purposes of Article 27
- Do the claims have the same object (ie the same end or subject matter)?
- Do the claims have the same cause (ie the same ‘facts and rules of law relied upon as the basis for the action’)?
- Article 27 is not inapplicable to defamation claims
- Case details
TMT analysis: The Court of Appeal has held that in determining whether concurrent proceedings constitute the same cause of action for the purposes of Article 27 of the Lugano Convention (lis pendens), the claims must have the same object (ie the same ‘end’ or ‘subject matter’, which depends on whether ‘the question…at the heart of the two actions’ is the same) and the same cause (ie the same ‘facts and rules of law relied upon as the basis for the action’). The court also held that Article 27 is not inapplicable or an abuse of EU law on the grounds that a claim for negative declaratory relief interferes with the substantive ‘right’ of the victim in a global personality rights claim to elect the forum. Written by Phil Hartley, senior legal adviser at Schillings International LLP.
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