The parties had each begun proceedings in different jurisdictions within the European Union. They disputed which court was first seised.
Held: The issue was decided by looking at when, in each case, the document instituting the proceedings was first lodged at court. Different jurisdictions within the Union had different procedures, but article 30 of the Judgments Order applied to the UK. There was no injustice in applying that rule.
Sir Anthony Clarke MR explained at that WPP’s case was that the writ lodged with the relevant Italian body with a request for service on 1 February 2006 was never validly served on it both because the letter purporting to serve it was addressed to a different entity (WPP Group plc) and also because the addressee was entitled to refuse to accept it without a translation. The time for refusal was unspecified and it was submitted that it therefore remained open to the defendant (unless there had been a prior positive act of acceptance) to intimate its refusal as long as it remained open to it to contest the court’s jurisdiction under CPR 11. These technical nit-picking arguments were dismissed; Mr Benatti was not blameworthy and the errors were excused.
Judges:
Sir Anthony Clarke MR, Buxton LJ, Toulson LJ
Citations:
[2007] EWCA Civ 263, Times 16-Apr-2007
Links:
Statutes:
Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 (OJ 2001 L12/1) 30(1) 30(2)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Wpp Holdings Italy Srl and others v Benatti ComC 18-Jul-2006
. .
Cited by:
Cited – Thum v Thum FC 21-Oct-2016
No abuse of process in service error
The husband claimed that the W was guilty of abuse of process by issuing the divorce petion, but then not serving it for many months in an attempt to gain a tactical jurisdictional advantage under Brussels II.
Held: H’s application was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Jurisdiction
Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.250577
