Van Heck v Giambrone & Partners Studio Legale Associato [2022] EWHC 1098 (QB) (12 May 2022)

Van Heck v Giambrone & Partners Studio Legale Associato [2022] EWHC 1098 (QB) (12 May 2022)

The critical question is whether the proceedings in the court first seised (Palermo) have been finally determined in relation to jurisdiction. An out-of-time appeal does not prevent finality if, under the relevant foreign law, the decision is final and the time for appeal has passed. The Judge was entitled to determine, based on expert evidence, that the Palermo decision was final for Article 29 purposes. Therefore, the condition for a mandatory stay was not satisfied.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 1098
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Dirk Vincent Van Heck; Defendant/appellant: Giambrone & Partners Studio Legale Associato
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order Refusing Stay Under Article 29 of EU Regulation 1215/2012
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Lis Alibi Pendens, Jurisdiction, Article 29 Brussels I Recast, Finality of Foreign Proceedings, Stay of Proceedings
Civil Procedure Private International Law Lis Alibi Pendens Jurisdiction Article 29 Brussels I Recast Finality of Foreign Proceedings Stay of Proceedings

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dirk Vincent Van Heck

Claimant/respondent

Giambrone & Partners Studio Legale Associato

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order Refusing Stay Under Article 29 of EU Regulation 1215/2012

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the existence of a pending appeal (in or out of time) in the court first seised prevents final determination for Article 29 purposes
  2. 2 Whether the English court must stay proceedings when an out-of-time appeal is pending in the foreign court
  3. 3 Whether the certificate of res judicata under Italian law is conclusive of finality for Article 29 purposes

Ratio Decidendi

The critical question is whether the proceedings in the court first seised (Palermo) have been finally determined in relation to jurisdiction. An out-of-time appeal does not prevent finality if, under the relevant foreign law, the decision is final and the time for appeal has passed. The Judge was entitled to determine, based on expert evidence, that the Palermo decision was final for Article 29 purposes. Therefore, the condition for a mandatory stay was not satisfied.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Refusal to stay the English proceedings under Article 29 of EU Regulation 1215/2012
  • No stay of the London Claim; proceedings may continue