PIL instrument(s)

Case number and/or case name

Alfa Laval Tumba AB & Ors v Separator Spares International Ltd & Others [2012] EWCA Civ 1569

Details of the court

England and Wales, Second Instance

Articles referred to by the court

Date of the judgement

29 November 2012

Appeal history

CJEU's case law cited by the court

Summary

The claims in this case were for a breach of copyright and misuse of confidential information and unfair competition. One of the claimants, Alfa Laval, was a Swedish company. The other claimant, WSK, was a Polish company. The first defendant, SSI, was a company incorporated in England. The claimants wanted to join, Mr Jasikowski as a co-defendant under Article 6(1). Mr Jasikowski challenged the English court’s jurisdiction, relying on Articles 18 and 20 of Brussels I. The English High Court dismissed the defendant’s jurisdictional challenge. The judge inter alia considered the applicable law under Rome II. It was noted that the claimants have established a good arguable case that the English law should apply, but the judge could not take a firm view on this. In any case, 4th May 2012, the High Court held that Mr Jasikowski had to be added as a co-defendant, noting that the defendant’s status of employee was not “legally relevant.” An appeal was made. On 29th November 2012, the decision of the High Court was reversed by the Court of Appeal. Lord Justice Longmore stated: “24 For these reasons I find it impossible to accept H.H.J. McGonigal’s “legal relevance” as the appropriate test to apply to claims brought by an employer against an employee pursuant to s.5 . It is much better to stick with the actual words of art.18(1) and ask oneself the question “Do the claims made against an employee relate to the individual’s contract of employment?” 25 This is a broad test which should be comparatively easy to apply. The Chancellor indicated in argument that (without proposing a test of any kind) it might in many cases be helpful to ask whether the acts complained of by the employer constitute breaches of contract by the employee. If so, the claims would be likely to “relate” to the contract of employment. If not, not. 26 It is clear that the allegations in the present case do, if substantiated, amount to breaches of Mr Jasikowski’s contract of employment. The misuse of confidential information is actually dealt with in the Employees Handbook which is part of the contract of employment made between WSK and Mr Jasikowski.” [2012] EWCA Civ 1569 [24-26].