Nussberger & Anor v Phillips & Anor [2006] EWCA Civ 654 (19 May 2006)

Nussberger & Anor v Phillips & Anor [2006] EWCA Civ 654 (19 May 2006)

The English court is not seised of proceedings against a foreign defendant until the claim form is served on that defendant; CPR6.9 cannot be used to retrospectively validate service and alter priority under Article 21 of the Lugano Convention once proceedings in another contracting state have already been seised.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 654
Parties
Appellant: Frieda Nussberger; Appellant: Galerie Nefer AG; Respondent: Jonathan Guy Anthony Phillips; Respondent: Robert Andrew Harland
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Jurisdiction, Lugano Convention, Hague Convention, Priority of Proceedings
Civil Procedure International Law Service of Process Jurisdiction Lugano Convention Hague Convention Priority 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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Frieda Nussberger

Appellant

Galerie Nefer AG

Appellant

Jonathan Guy Anthony Phillips

Respondent

Robert Andrew Harland

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 When is an English court 'seised' for purposes of Article 21 of the Lugano Convention?
  2. 2 Can CPR6.9 be invoked to retrospectively validate service and affect priority under Article 21?
  3. 3 Was the removal of the claim form by the Swiss court lawful under the Hague Convention?

Ratio Decidendi

The English court is not seised of proceedings against a foreign defendant until the claim form is served on that defendant; CPR6.9 cannot be used to retrospectively validate service and alter priority under Article 21 of the Lugano Convention once proceedings in another contracting state have already been seised.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Stay of English proceedings as against the defendants under Article 21 of the Lugano Convention
  • Costs to be determined