Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 82009UK1111(01)

Court of Appeal (England), Civil Division, judgment of 11/11/2009
Chaitan Choudhary & Others / Damodar Prasad Bhatter & Ors

Date of document:
11/11/2009
Author:
Krajowe organy sądowe
Country or organisation from which the request originates:
Zjednoczone Królestwo
Form:
Decyzje krajowych organów sądowych w zakresie prawa Unii Europejskiej
Internal reference:
IA/32611-A
Authentic language:
angielski
Notes relating to the decision:
Descriptors:

1. EEC - Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Council Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 - Scope - Excluded matters - Bankruptcy, proceedings relating to the winding-up of insolvent companies or other legal persons, judicial arrangements, compositions and analogous proceedings - Definition – Claim for compensation under the Companies Act - Whether included

2. EEC - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Council Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 - Exclusive jurisdiction - Expression "regardless of domicile" within the meaning of Article 22 of the regulation - Interpretation – Defendant domiciled in a non-contracting State – No effect
Follow-up to the case by the national courts:

There is a legal issue concerning the scope of Article 1(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 and the application of Article 22 (exclusive jurisdiction) to a defendant domiciled in a State that is not party to the regulation.

The Court of Appeal held that although the company in question was a party in "related proceedings" concerning bankruptcy and winding-up in India, the proceedings in the case in point related to a claim for compensation under the Companies Act 1985, meaning that jurisdiction was not precluded.

The phrase "regardless of domicile" in Article 22 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 must be interpreted in the context of the regulation. Consequently, Article 22 does not apply to a defendant not resident in an EU Member State.

This was the first time that the UK courts had handled a case like this.
Language
PDF