Summary
The dispute was in respect of a contract which provided for the claimants to commence a business which was a “carve out” from Eurotunnel’s existing business.
The contract included an arbitration clause. However, the claimants initiated court proceedings in England. They sought injunctive relief, restraining defendants from using confidential business information. Also, they were seeking contractual damages as well as damage for unlawful interference with the claimants’ business. Since ET Plus (claimant) and Eurotunnel (8th and 9th defendants) were parties to a valid arbitration agreement (which happened to be broad enough to cover contractual and tortious claims), the English court did not have jurisdiction to hear and determine their dispute.
Also, bearing in mind the mandatory nature of Articles 18(1) and 20(1) of Brussels I, the English did not have jurisdiction to hear and determine “’pure’ employment claims (i.e. claims for breach of contracts of employment) against the first, second, third and fifth defendants”. [58]
Although the English would have had jurisdiction under Article 6(1) of Brussels I to hear and determine some of the other claims against some other defendants, the court held that the central dispute in this matter lies between ET Plus and Eurotunnel. On this basis, the court granted a stay of the surviving claims as the outcome of the Paris arbitration was considered decisive for them.