EUPillar Debt Collection London Ltd & Anor v SK Slavia Praha-Fotbal AS [2010] EWCA Civ 1250

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. An appeal was made. On 4th November 2010, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the jurisdictional point. Lord Justice Mummery held that: “27 In my judgment, the judge correctly held that non-payment of the fee was a failure to take a step required for effecting service. It follows that the proviso in Article 30.1 disapplies the general rule that the court is deemed to be seised of proceedings when they are lodged; that the Czech Court was not seised of the proceedings before the English proceedings were issued and served; that the English Court was first seised of the pending proceedings; and that the judge was right to dismiss SSPF's application for a stay of these proceedings. I would dismiss the appeal on the jurisdiction point.” [2010] EWCA Civ 1250 [27] Similar opinion was shared by Lord Justice Lloyd, holding that: “46 I agree with Mummery LJ that the question whether a court is seised of proceedings does not have to be answered unless or until another court is (or may be) also seised of relevant proceedings—whether for the same cause of action within article 27 or for a related cause of action within the meaning of article 28. Once there are competing proceedings, it becomes necessary to decide which court was first seised. In order to do that, one must look at each set of proceedings on its own and decide when each of the relevant courts became seised of the proceedings, and whether it continued to be seised at all material times. In the present case, therefore, since it is known that the English court was seised of the proceedings on 12 June 2009 (and the proviso did not apply so as to affect that position), the “first seised” issue is to be decided by considering whether, immediately before the issue of the claim form on 12 June, the Czech court was itself seised of the Czech proceedings. The fact that it had been seised at an earlier stage is not relevant, if it was not seised at that time as a result of the operation of the proviso.” [2010] EWCA Civ 1250 [46].