Ness Global Services Ltd v Perform Content Services Ltd

Ness Global Services Ltd v Perform Content Services Ltd

Where Article 25 operates to confer prorogated jurisdiction, whether exclusive or non-exclusive, Articles 33 and 34 are not applicable; the court's jurisdiction is not 'based upon' Article 4, and Article 33 cannot be applied reflexively to circumvent this gateway requirement.

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 / Ruling on Jurisdictional Stay Application
Outcome
Jurisdiction Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Lis Pendens, Non Exclusive Jurisdiction Agreements, Brussels Regulation, Stay of Proceedings
Private International Law Commercial Law Jurisdiction Lis Pendens Non Exclusive Jurisdiction Agreements Brussels Regulation 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 11 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 / Ruling on Jurisdictional Stay Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does Article 33 of Regulation (EU) No.1215/2012 apply where the court's jurisdiction is based on both domicile (Article 4) and a non-exclusive jurisdiction agreement (Article 25)?
  2. 2 Can Article 33 be applied reflexively where its express jurisdictional gateway is not satisfied?
  3. 3 Should the court grant a stay of proceedings under Article 33 given the existence of prior proceedings in New Jersey, USA?

Ratio Decidendi

Where Article 25 operates to confer prorogated jurisdiction, whether exclusive or non-exclusive, Articles 33 and 34 are not applicable; the court's jurisdiction is not 'based upon' Article 4, and Article 33 cannot be applied reflexively to circumvent this gateway requirement.

Court Disposition

Jurisdiction Application dismissed

Orders

  • Schedules of costs to be filed and served before circulation of the draft judgment by any party intending to seek summary assessment or payment on account.