Knauf UK GmBH v British Gypsum Ltd. & Anor [2002] EWHC 739 (Comm) (23 April 2002)

Knauf UK GmBH v British Gypsum Ltd. & Anor [2002] EWHC 739 (Comm) (23 April 2002)

The English court lacks jurisdiction over the contribution claim against Peters as service was set aside and Peters ceased to be a defendant; CPR 20.6 and Article 6.2 do not permit the claim in these circumstances.

Citation
[2002] EWHC 739 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Knauf UK GmbH; First Defendant: British Gypsum Limited; Second Defendant: Wellkisten und Papierfabriken Fritz Peters & Co KG
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 April 2002
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim / Ruling on Applications to Strike Out Contribution Claim and for Order for Service of Defence
Outcome
Contribution notice struck out; service set aside.
Legal Topics
Contribution Claims, Jurisdictional Challenge, Service of Process, Brussels Convention, Civil Liability (contribution) Act 1978
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Jurisdiction Contribution Claims Jurisdictional Challenge Service of Process Brussels Convention Civil Liability (contribution) Act 1978

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Knauf UK GmbH

Claimant

British Gypsum Limited

First Defendant

Wellkisten und Papierfabriken Fritz Peters & Co KG

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim / Ruling on Applications to Strike Out Contribution Claim and for Order for Service of Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction to entertain a contribution claim by British Gypsum against Peters
  2. 2 Whether service of the Part 20 contribution notice was valid
  3. 3 Whether CPR 20.6 and Article 6.2 of the Brussels Convention permit the claim

Ratio Decidendi

The English court lacks jurisdiction over the contribution claim against Peters as service was set aside and Peters ceased to be a defendant; CPR 20.6 and Article 6.2 do not permit the claim in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Contribution notice struck out; service set aside.

Orders

  • Contribution notice against Peters struck out.
  • Service of contribution notice set aside.