- To stay or not to stay? The High Court’s approach to multiple proceedings and foreign judgments (Koninklijke Philips v Tinno Mobile Technology)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: This case involved an opposed application to stay English proceedings, and vacate the November 2020 trial date, in circumstances where proceedings had been commenced in both England and France. The application for a stay pursuant to Articles 29 and 30 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast), was dismissed, and the judgment indicates the approach taken by the courts to foreign judgments, as well as guidance on how to balance competing factors for and against a stay pursuant to Article 30. The timing and stage of the proceedings were of particular importance when assessing whether to stay the action, and judge concluded that possibility of irreconcilable judgments was not so great as to weigh against the desirability and fairness of the prompt resolution of the dispute. Written by Helen Morton, barrister at Essex Court Chambers.
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