Petter v EMC Europe Ltd & Anor

Petter v EMC Europe Ltd & Anor

The dispute between Mr. Petter and EMC relates to his contract of employment within the meaning of Article 20(1) of Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012. Both EMC and EMC Europe are to be regarded as his employers for the purposes of the Regulation. The exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of Massachusetts courts is of no effect, and the English court has jurisdiction. The judge was wrong to refuse an anti-suit injunction; in a case falling within Section 5 of the Regulation, an anti-suit injunction should ordinarily be granted to restrain an employer from bringing proceedings outside the Member States in order to protect the employee’s rights.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: James Petter; First Defendant/respondent: EMC Europe Limited; Second Defendant/respondent: EMC Corporation
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
EMC’s appeal dismissed; Mr. Petter’s appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses, Anti Suit Injunctions, Contracts of Employment, EU Regulation No. 1215/2012 (brussels I Recast)
Employment Law Private International Law Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses Anti Suit Injunctions Contracts of Employment EU Regulation No. 1215/2012 (brussels I Recast)

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Petter

Claimant/appellant

EMC Europe Limited

First Defendant/respondent

EMC Corporation

Second Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Interlocutory Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction over EMC Corporation despite an exclusive Massachusetts jurisdiction clause in the RSU agreements
  2. 2 Whether the English court should grant an anti-suit injunction restraining EMC from pursuing proceedings in Massachusetts

Ratio Decidendi

The dispute between Mr. Petter and EMC relates to his contract of employment within the meaning of Article 20(1) of Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012. Both EMC and EMC Europe are to be regarded as his employers for the purposes of the Regulation. The exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of Massachusetts courts is of no effect, and the English court has jurisdiction. The judge was wrong to refuse an anti-suit injunction; in a case falling within Section 5 of the Regulation, an anti-suit injunction should ordinarily be granted to restrain an employer from bringing proceedings outside the Member States in order to protect the employee’s rights.

Court Disposition

EMC’s appeal dismissed; Mr. Petter’s appeal allowed.

Orders

  • The English court has jurisdiction over EMC Corporation.
  • An anti-suit injunction is granted restraining EMC from pursuing proceedings in Massachusetts against Mr. Petter in relation to the Stock Plan and RSU agreements.