Etihad Airways PJSC v Flother

Etihad Airways PJSC v Flother

Article 31(2) of Brussels Recast applies to asymmetric jurisdiction clauses to the extent that they confer exclusive jurisdiction for one party. Where a party is bound to bring proceedings only in the designated court, that agreement is protected by Article 31(2), and the court second seised (here, the English court) is not obliged to stay its proceedings under Article 29. This interpretation gives effect to party autonomy and the legislative purpose of preventing abusive litigation tactics, as reflected in recital (22).

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Etihad Airways PJSC; Defendant/appellant: Prof. Dr. Lucas Flöther
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Agreements, Brussels Recast Regulation, Asymmetric Jurisdiction Clauses, Lis Pendens, Party Autonomy
Private International Law Civil Procedure Commercial Law Jurisdiction Agreements Brussels Recast Regulation Asymmetric Jurisdiction Clauses Lis Pendens Party Autonomy

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Etihad Airways PJSC

Claimant/respondent

Prof. Dr. Lucas Flöther

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does Article 31(2) of Brussels Recast apply to asymmetric jurisdiction clauses?
  2. 2 Is the English court obliged to stay its proceedings under Article 29 or does Article 31(2) apply?
  3. 3 What is the autonomous EU law meaning of an agreement conferring exclusive jurisdiction?

Ratio Decidendi

Article 31(2) of Brussels Recast applies to asymmetric jurisdiction clauses to the extent that they confer exclusive jurisdiction for one party. Where a party is bound to bring proceedings only in the designated court, that agreement is protected by Article 31(2), and the court second seised (here, the English court) is not obliged to stay its proceedings under Article 29. This interpretation gives effect to party autonomy and the legislative purpose of preventing abusive litigation tactics, as reflected in recital (22).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; High Court order upheld