PIL instrument(s)

Case number and/or case name

Speed Investments Ltd v Formula One Holdings Ltd (No.2) [2004] EWHC 1827 Ch

Details of the court

England and Wales, First Instance

Articles referred to by the court

Date of the judgement

20 July 2004

Appeal history

CJEU's case law cited by the court

Summary

The dispute involved Formula One Holdings, raising an issue about the appointment of directors. There was a jurisdictional battle. The English proceedings were commenced on 1 March 2004, but they were not served until 19th March 2004. In the English proceedings, the two claimants were each Jersey companies; the first defendant was a company registered in England. The second defendant is another Jersey company, Bambino, and the Argandas are individuals domiciled in Switzerland. However, Bambino commenced proceedings in Switzerland on 15th March 2004. In England, the central question was whether the English court could exercise its jurisdiction under Article 22 in the circumstances. The court held that the real subject matter of the dispute was the composition of the board which raised issues about the validity of decisions of the board, and validity of entries in the public register. On this basis, jurisdiction was found to exist under Art 22 of Brussels I. Since jurisdiction was assumed on this basis, the English court was not required to stay its proceedings and await a decision to be rendered by the court first seised. Mr Justice Lewison held: “38 In my judgment, the subject matter of the English proceedings is the composition of the board of directors of Formula One Holdings and therefore it does fall within Art.22(2). The claim to rectify the register of directors, in my judgment, falls within Art.22(3). Thus, so far as Bambino is concerned, the application fails. 63 I hold, therefore, that where exclusive jurisdiction under Art.16 is in point, the court in which exclusive jurisdiction is vested, even if second seised as regards some parties, may determine its own jurisdiction and need not stay the case pending determination by the court first seised. I therefore hold that I should determine whether the claim against the Argands is governed by Art.16.” [38 and 62] The High Court judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeal