Cousins Material House Limited v The Swatch Group AG & Ors
[2024] EWHC 710 (Ch)
Ca Indosuez (Switzerland) SA v Afriquia Gaz SA & Anor
28 September 2023
[2023] EWCA Civ 1072
Court of Appeal
A company sued another company in England, relying on a treaty. The sued company argued the rules had changed, and the case was no longer valid because the original case was settled. The court disagreed, saying the treaty rules allowed the lawsuit and the settlement didn't affect it.
Key Facts
- •A Part 20 claim was issued by the Buyers against UBS in Switzerland on December 30, 2020, relying on Article 6(2) of the Lugano Convention.
- •The claim concerned payments made by the Buyers to the Seller's UBS account instead of the assigned CAIS account.
- •UBS challenged the jurisdiction of the English court.
- •The main proceedings between CAIS and the Buyers were settled before UBS's jurisdiction challenge was heard.
- •UBS argued that permission was required to serve the Part 20 claim form out of the jurisdiction and that jurisdiction was lost due to the settlement of the main proceedings.
Legal Principles
Lugano Convention must be interpreted purposively, considering its scheme and purpose.
Briggs on Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments 7th ed. at 3.10
Exceptions to domiciliary jurisdiction are interpreted restrictively.
Briggs on Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments 7th ed. at 3.11
Risk of irreconcilable decisions must be minimized.
Briggs on Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments 7th ed. at 3.12
Legal certainty, predictability, and proximity should be supported.
Briggs on Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments 7th ed. at 3.13
EU decisions on the Brussels Convention (and successors) are authoritative for interpreting the Lugano Convention.
Common ground between parties
Article 6(2) of the Lugano Convention allows third-party proceedings in the court seized of the original proceedings, unless instituted solely to remove a defendant from a more competent jurisdiction.
Lugano Convention, Article 6(2)
In third-party proceedings under Article 6(2), the only requirement is to prevent abusive use of the provision; a 'sufficiency of connection' test is not required.
CJEU decisions in GIE Réunion and SOVAG
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed on the service issue.
The amendment to CPR 6.33(3) removed the exclusion of Lugano Convention claims, permitting service of Transitional Claims without permission.
Appeal dismissed on the jurisdiction issue.
The court had jurisdiction under Article 6(2) at the date of issue of the Part 20 claim. Jurisdiction is assessed at the date of issue, not the date of the jurisdiction challenge. There is no 'sufficiency of connection' test for Article 6(2), only a prohibition against abusive use.