PIL instrument(s)

Case number and/or case name

Debt Collection London Ltd & Anor v SK Slavia Praha-Fotbal AS [2009] EWHC 2726 (QB)

Details of the court

England and Wales, First Instance

Articles referred to by the court

Date of the judgement

03 November 2009

Appeal history

CJEU's case law cited by the court

Summary

The defendant was a famous football club from the Czech Republic. The defendant entered into a loan agreement with the claimant. The loan agreement, which was governed by English law, were for the sum of £2,877,670. Repayment was demanded by the claimant. Proceedings were first initiated in the Czech Republic by the defendant in the English proceedings. Although, the Czech proceedings were first initiated, the fee required was not paid by the football club. As a result, the claim form was not served to the claimant in the English proceedings. On 12th June 2009, the claim form in the English proceedings was issued. On 4th August, the English proceedings were served on the defendant. The defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the English courts, and requested a stay under Article 27 of Brussels. On 3rd November 2009, the High Court dismissed the defendant’s application, holding that the English court was first seised. Mr Justice Tugendhat held that: “66 In my judgment the issue that I have to decide in relation to this point depends only in part upon Czech law as to the effect of the non-payment of a fee. The opinion of the Supreme Court cited in para.58 above establishes (and Mr Matous does not dispute) that the court shall not serve the proceedings before the fee has been paid. Whether lodging a claim with the Czech court but not paying the fee, has the effect that the Czech court is seised within arts 27 and 28 is a point of EU law, not Czech law. It is not suggested that payment of the fee was required before lodgment of the documents. I therefore take the failure by SSPF to pay the fee to have been subsequent to the lodgment of the claim. And it was a failure to take a step that SSPF was required to take to have service effected on DCL. 67 It follows in my judgment that the Czech court was not seised of SSPF's claim within the meaning of arts 27 and 28 of the Judgments Regulation before August 6. That is to say, it was not seised of the proceedings before the date on which it has been contended that the English Court was seised. In my judgment the English court was the court first seised.” [66-67] An appeal was made. On 4th November 2010, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the jurisdictional point.