- High Court considers applicability of Article 24 of Brussels I (recast) regulation (Marriott v Fresson)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- Article 24(2)
- Article 24(3)
- What did the court decide?
- Does Article 24(2) apply?
- Does Article 24(3) apply?
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: On 25 September 2020, the High Court rejected an application by the first defendant (Mr Fresson) and the third defendant (PEV) (applicants) challenging the jurisdiction of the English court. The critical question was whether the proceedings fell within the scope of Article 24 of Brussels I (recast), which would have afforded exclusive jurisdiction to the Spanish courts if the proceedings ‘had as their object, the validity of the decisions of their organs’, or ‘the validity of entries in the public registers’. The judge followed the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice, in taking a strict interpretation of the regulation, and ruled that the principal subject matter of the claim was two agreements (subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts). The assertion of rights to be exercised as a shareholder was an ancillary matter which did not bring the dispute within the scope of Article 24. Written by Sarah Ellington, legal director, at DLA Piper UK 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