Ness Global Services Ltd v Perform Content Services Ltd [2020] EWHC 3394 (Comm) (10 December 2020)

Ness Global Services Ltd v Perform Content Services Ltd [2020] EWHC 3394 (Comm) (10 December 2020)

Article 33 does not apply where the court's jurisdiction is based on Article 25, whether exclusive or non-exclusive; the gateway wording is clear and restricts application to jurisdiction based on Article 4 or Articles 7, 8, or 9. The existence of a non-exclusive jurisdiction agreement under Article 25 precludes the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 3394 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Ness Global Services Limited; Defendant: Perform Content Services Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application / Jurisdiction Challenge Under CPR Part 11
Outcome
Jurisdiction application dismissed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Lis Pendens, Brussels Regulation, Non Exclusive Jurisdiction Agreements
Private International Law Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Lis Pendens Brussels Regulation Non Exclusive Jurisdiction Agreements

Source-derived case record

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ness Global Services Limited

Claimant

Perform Content Services Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application / Jurisdiction Challenge Under CPR Part 11

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does Article 33 of Regulation (EU) No.1215/2012 apply where jurisdiction is based on both domicile (Article 4) and a non-exclusive jurisdiction agreement (Article 25)?
  2. 2 Can Article 33 be applied reflexively if its express gateway is not satisfied?
  3. 3 Should the court exercise discretion to stay proceedings under Article 33 in favour of prior proceedings in a third State?

Ratio Decidendi

Article 33 does not apply where the court's jurisdiction is based on Article 25, whether exclusive or non-exclusive; the gateway wording is clear and restricts application to jurisdiction based on Article 4 or Articles 7, 8, or 9. The existence of a non-exclusive jurisdiction agreement under Article 25 precludes the discretionary stay regime of Article 33, even if domicile is also present.

Court Disposition

Jurisdiction application dismissed

Orders

  • Proceedings to continue in the English Commercial Court
  • No stay granted under Article 33 of Regulation (EU) No.1215/2012