- Brussels I (recast)—interpretation of Articles 33 and 34 dealing with stays in favour of a non-party state (Ness Global Services v Perform Content Services)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: This judgment provides an insight into the application of Article 33 of Brussels I (recast) which allows the court to stay proceedings in favour of a third state. Specifically, it considers the interpretation of the jurisdictional gateway set out in the opening sentence of Article 33, which requires jurisdiction to be ‘based on’ Articles 4, 7, 8 and 9. The judge held that where jurisdiction is not claimed on the basis of one of those Articles then an application for a stay should fail if the parties have agreed a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause. This is because the court’s jurisdiction will be derived from that agreement, applying Article 25, and not from Article 33, even if the defendant is domiciled in the jurisdiction. The same approach applies in relation to Article 34 as it has the same wording in its opening sentence. Written by Joseph Dalby SC, barrister and head of civil practice at 36 Commercial, The 36 Group.
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