Etihad Airways PJSC v Flother [2019] EWHC 3107 (Comm) (18 November 2019)

Etihad Airways PJSC v Flother [2019] EWHC 3107 (Comm) (18 November 2019)

The English court has jurisdiction under the Facility Agreement's jurisdiction clause over disputes relating to the Comfort Letter because both documents formed part of a single support package, were closely connected, and there is a good arguable case that the parties intended the English court to have jurisdiction. The jurisdiction clause is sufficiently broad to encompass the present dispute. There is no competing jurisdiction clause. The standard of 'good arguable case' is met. The application for a stay is refused as Article 31(2) of Brussels Recast applies and the English court is not required to stay the proceedings.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 3107 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Etihad Airways PJSC; Defendant/applicant: Prof. Dr. Lucas Flöther
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application for Declaratory Relief and Stay of Proceedings / Judgment on Jurisdiction and Stay Application
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Clauses, Declaratory Relief, Lis Pendens, Interpretation of Contracts, EU Brussels Recast Regulation, Asymmetric Jurisdiction Clauses
Private International Law Contract Law Insolvency Law Jurisdiction Clauses Declaratory Relief Lis Pendens Interpretation of Contracts EU Brussels Recast Regulation +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Etihad Airways PJSC

Claimant/respondent

Prof. Dr. Lucas Flöther

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application for Declaratory Relief and Stay of Proceedings / Judgment on Jurisdiction and Stay Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the English court have jurisdiction under the Facility Agreement's jurisdiction clause over disputes relating to the Comfort Letter?
  2. 2 Does Article 25 of the Brussels Recast Regulation apply to the present dispute?
  3. 3 Should the English proceedings be stayed in favour of the German court under Article 31 of Brussels Recast?

Ratio Decidendi

The English court has jurisdiction under the Facility Agreement's jurisdiction clause over disputes relating to the Comfort Letter because both documents formed part of a single support package, were closely connected, and there is a good arguable case that the parties intended the English court to have jurisdiction. The jurisdiction clause is sufficiently broad to encompass the present dispute. There is no competing jurisdiction clause. The standard of 'good arguable case' is met. The application for a stay is refused as Article 31(2) of Brussels Recast applies and the English court is not required to stay the proceedings.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for a stay of the English proceedings is refused.
  • The English court has jurisdiction over the claims.