- Resisting applications for declarations pursuant to Brussels I (recast) (Galapagos Bidco v Kebekus and others)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: The High Court, noting previous precedent that bestowed a wide-ranging and discretionary power upon it to issue declarations , held that it was empowered to issue declarations in circumstances where the applications for declarations had not been resisted by the anchor defendants. The two resisting defendants were bound by Article 8(1) of Brussels I (recast) as the application for declarations related to precisely the same subject matter as the proceedings which they sought to bring in overseas jurisdictions. The court refused the two resisting defendants’ application on that basis and determined that allowing the application would have increased the risk of irreconcilable judgements resulting from separate proceedings. Written by Christopher Humby, of counsel, at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan 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