The matter concerns the jurisdiction of French courts over matters disputed in one of England\u2019s Commercial Courts. By way of background, the Claimant in the matter is a French reinsurance company, SCOR SE who has issued two sets of proceedings in France, and one in England. The case concerns a third party, Mr Derez who was a director of the Claimant company as well as a chairman of two other companies referred to as Cov\u00e9a. \u00a0Cov\u00e9a was a shareholder of SCOR SE and expressed intention to acquire a majority share in the company. Barclays Bank plc was a prospective lender in the proposed acquisition as well as a financial advisor to Cov\u00e9a. The Claimant avers Mr Derez disclosed confidential information to Cov\u00e9a and Barclays Bank plc who is the Defendant in these particular proceedings.<\/p>\n
The application made by the Defendant put forward to the Queens Bench Division of the High Court of Justice Business and Property Courts of England and Wales was to request a stay pending the outcome of the related proceedings in France under Article 30 of Regulation (EU) 1215\/2012 or under the Court\u2019s case management powers. The basis of Barclays Bank plc\u2019s application was that the proceedings were relating to French criminal proceedings.<\/p>\n
The Court\u2019s analysis of the case included whether the Commercial Court proceedings related to the criminal proceedings subsequently taking place in France. Through a thorough examination of precedential law, Christopher Hancock QC referred to Sarrio SA v Kuwait Investment Authority [1999] 1 AC 32 <\/em>and the subsequent cases of Research in Motion UK v Visto [2008] 2 All ER (Comm) <\/em>and Privatbank v Kolomoisky [2019] EWCA Civ 1709 <\/em>in his decision. The Judge followed suit of the most recent case of Privatbank v Kolomoisky<\/em> that reinforced the principles of Sarrio SA v Kuwait Investment Authority <\/em>and found there was a relationship present between the proceedings.<\/p>\n Despite the Judge finding the proceedings related, this was not preventative in application his discretion to the case. By applying Euroeco Fuels (Poland) Limited and others v Sczezin and Swinoujscie Seaports and others <\/em>[2019], the judge refused to grant the Defendant\u2019s application to stay the English proceedings on the basis that the cases can in fact be tried together.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The matter concerns the jurisdiction of French courts over matters disputed in one of England\u2019s Commercial Courts. By way of background, the Claimant in the matter is a French reinsurance…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":1636,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,11],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.szepietowski.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1635"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.szepietowski.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.szepietowski.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.szepietowski.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.szepietowski.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1635"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.szepietowski.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1635\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1637,"href":"https:\/\/www.szepietowski.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1635\/revisions\/1637"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.szepietowski.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1636"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.szepietowski.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1635"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.szepietowski.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1635"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.szepietowski.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1635"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}