The first claimant commenced divorce proceedings against the first defendant in Monaco, where the parties were domiciled. The first defendant, claiming that assets transferred to the first claimant were held as family assets and subject to rights in favour of the seventh defendant, commenced asset transfer proceedings in Monaco. Thereafter, the first claimant made allegations that following the marital breakdown the first defendant, in combination with the seventh defendant and others, had devised a strategy of dishonest and/or improper and/or unlawful actions with the objective of maximising his share of the matrimonial assets. Relying on alleged misrepresentations made in London, which was said to be the place where the actual and likely damage resulting from the conduct occurred, the first claimant brought an action in England against the defendants. Jurisdiction against those defendants domiciled in the European Union, one of whom was an English registered company, was founded on article 8(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012. The EU domiciled defendants sought a stay under article 34 of the Regulation on the ground that the first defendant’s asset transfer claim was an action pending in a third state when the English court was seised of the claimants’ related claim and it was expedient to hear the actions together. On the application, the question arose whether article 34 applied, given that the asset transfer claim involved matrimonial property, therefore if it had been commenced in an EU member state it would not have been within the scope of the Regulation.
On the application—
Held, application refused. Article 34 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 was not capable of applying where the proceedings before the courts of the third state first seised did not fall within the scope of the Regulation. Accordingly, there was no jurisdiction to grant the EU domiciled defendants a stay (para 316).
Per curiam. (i) It is possible for proceedings to be related for the purposes of article 34(1) even where the parties are not the same, although the less correlation there is between the parties to the two actions, the less likely it is that the preconditions to exercise the jurisdiction will be satisfied (para 320).
(ii) Where it cannot be said that the two sets of proceedings can be heard and determined together in a single jurisdiction that will be a compelling reason for refusing a stay (paras 321, 323).
Helen Davies QC, Matthew Cook QC, Patrick Harty, Georgina Petrova and Daniel Fletcher (instructed by Mishcon de Reya LLP) for the claimants.
Andrew Scott (instructed by Asserson Law) for the sixth defendant.
James Willan QC and Adam Woolnough (instructed by PCB Byrne LLP) for the seventh to twelfth defendants.
The thirteenth defendant did not appear and was not represented.