Summary
The claimant, LBBA, was based in Germany; the defendant, CMA, was based in France.
There were a number of proceedings between the parties.
The dispute was in respect of a series of settlement agreements governed by English law. According to these agreements, a debt of $42 million was owned by CMA to LBBA. The creditor, LBBA, were to be satisfied if the debtor, CMA, paid $36 million. That said, $42 million would be due if CMA defaulted, and did not remedy the default within 3 French business day.
There were parallel proceedings in England and France. The French proceedings started on 23rd February 2010.
The English proceedings commenced on the 10th June 2011.
The jurisdiction of the English court was invoked on the basis of a jurisdiction clause which formed part of a settlement agreement. An application for a stay of the English proceedings was made. The application was granted by Mr Justice Walker, stating that:
“79 Adopting the approach in Research in Motion , I first address the degree of connection. It seems to me to be highly relevant that, as noted in section B above, the English proceedings cannot be substantively determined in favour of LBBA unless either (1) the French law proposition is wrong, or (2) the French law proposition is right but as a matter of English private international law it does not assist CMA. In this regard I consider that there is a substantial degree of connection. Pushing on with the English proceedings runs a substantial risk of trespassing on the French proceedings with the consequent danger of irreconcilable judgments.
80 I then make a value judgment as to the expediency of hearing the two actions together in order to avoid the risk of inconsistent judgments. As regards the French law proposition this may be achieved if the Cour de Cassation concludes that it should be decided. In all the circumstances my value judgment is that substantive consideration of the English proceedings will be more advantageously dealt with after the French courts have determined whether or not they will decide the French law proposition, and if so what the answer is and why.” [79-80]