Summary
The action under Brussels I was initiated on 16 August 2004, but it appeared there was another set of proceedings under the Brussels Convention which had started on 7th November 2001.
The proceedings were concerned with a ship which suffered casualty. Following the incident, there was an agreement between the ship-owner and the salvor. For whatever reason, the salvor agreed to share a proportion from the salvage award with the shipowner.
The claim related to payments, which were due to the shipowner, under this agreement. There were a number of actions, including parallel proceedings in Greece and England. On 7 November 2001, under the Brussels Convention, the ship-owner commenced proceedings in England. The defendants were served with the action on 23 Nov 2001, and on 21 Dec 2001, respectively. On 8 Nov 2001, the salvors initiated proceedings in Greece, seeking a non-liability declaration. On 19 November, service was made through the Public Prosecutor. In March 2003, the English High Court held that the Greek court was the first seised. In February 2004, the English Court of Appeal reversed the HC judgment, and restored the English proceedings.
On 16th August 2004, under the Brussels I Regulation, a second action was initiated by the ship-owners in England. The salvors were served with the second action on 18th August 2004. The English court established jurisdiction under Article 5(1) of Brussels I. Although the English court was second seised for the purposes of Brussels I, Article 27 was only relevant in cases where there are concurrent proceedings. Since there was a judgment rendered in the Greek proceedings, the English court did not need to decline jurisdiction.
On 12th October 2005, Mr Justice Andrew Smith held that:
“62 Article 30 provides that the Greek Court is deemed to be seised of the Greek proceedings when they were instituted on November 8, 2001, unless the proviso in Art.30(1) applies because the claimants in the Greek proceedings have “subsequently failed to take the steps [they were] required to take to have service effected on” Mr Tavoulareas. The Greek claimants gave the Greek Court the wrong address for Mr Tavoulareas, but, even if this is to be characterised as a failure to take steps to have service effected, it cannot be regarded as a failure subsequent to the lodging of the document instituting the proceedings with the court. This cannot bring into play the proviso to Art.30(1).” Tavoulareas v Tsavliris and Others [2005] EWHC 2140 (Comm) [62]
On 24 November 2005, Mr Justice Andrew Smith went on to state:
“18 It follows that, because judgment has been given in the Greek proceedings, I reject the application made by AGT Co in the second action that this court should decline jurisdiction under article 27.” Tavoulareas v Tsavliris and Others [2005] EWHC 2643 (Comm) [18]
In another set of proceedings, the salvors sought the recognition of the Greek judgment in England. On 20 December 2006, the English Court of Appeal denied recognition of the Greek judgment on the ground of public policy under Article 34(2) of Brussels I. (See Tavoulareas v Tsavliris and Others [2006] EWCA Civ 1772 affirming [2006] EWHC 414 (Comm)