Summary
The first claimant, Seven Licensing (SLC), was domiciled in Luxembourg; the second claimant, Seven Ltd (Seven), was domiciled in Hong Kong. The first defendant, FFG-SA, was a Greek company; the second defendant, FFG-IP, was domiciled in Cyprus; the third defendant, FFG-DH, was domiciled in Cyprus as well.
The dispute related to a licence agreement. Under the licence, FFG-DH had to pay to SLC a total of $12.5 million which were due by instalments. Bank guarantees were set accordingly. All the agreements (including a settlement agreement) between the parties included English choice-of-agreements.
On 9th Feb 2010, the Greek proceedings were initiated, aiming to restrain the National Bank of Greece (NBG) and Proton Bank (Proton) from paying any sums to Seven. The claimant was FFG-DH; the defendants were the banks and Seven.
On 2nd August 2010, the claimants commenced the proceedings against the defendants in England. They were suing for money which had been allegedly due to them in accordance with the terms of the contracts between the parties.
The defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the English court, making an application for a stay under Article 28 of Brussels I.
The English Court dismissed the defendant’s jurisdictional challenge, refusing the application for stay. Mrs Justice Gloster held:
“68 […] I concluded that, in the particular circumstances of this case:
i) the degree of connection between the both sets of proceedings was limited; and
ii) the risk of mutually irreconcilable decisions was remote, given the fact that:
a) the Greek court would have to apply English law to determine the Defendants’ obligations under the MOA;
b) the limited issues in play in the current Greek Proceedings; and
c) the stage reached in the Greek Proceedings; and
iii) the English court is clearly in the best position to decide the issues raised in the English Proceedings and so far as they overlap and/or are based on English law, the issues raised in the Greek Proceedings.” [68].