Tavoulareas v Tsavliris

Tavoulareas v Tsavliris

The Greek court was not definitively seized of the proceedings for the purposes of Article 21 of the Brussels Convention until service was effected in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 or, at the earliest, until the claimant had actual notice and opportunity to defend. As this occurred after the English proceedings were served, the English court was first seized and the stay should not have been granted.

Parties
Appellant: Tavoulareas; Respondent: Tsavliris
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Queen’s Bench Division to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Litispendens, Jurisdiction, Service of Process, Brussels Convention, Council Regulation (ec) No 1348/2000
Civil Procedure Private International Law Litispendens Jurisdiction Service of Process Brussels Convention Council Regulation (ec) No 1348/2000

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tavoulareas

Appellant

Tsavliris

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Queen’s Bench Division to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 When are proceedings considered definitively pending (litispendens) under Article 21 of the Brussels Convention?
  2. 2 Does service on the Public Prosecutor in Greece constitute effective service for the purposes of Article 21 when the defendant is resident abroad?
  3. 3 What is the effect of Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 on the determination of the date of service and seisin?

Ratio Decidendi

The Greek court was not definitively seized of the proceedings for the purposes of Article 21 of the Brussels Convention until service was effected in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 or, at the earliest, until the claimant had actual notice and opportunity to defend. As this occurred after the English proceedings were served, the English court was first seized and the stay should not have been granted.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Stay of English proceedings set aside
  • English proceedings restored