header-logo header-logo

Conflict of laws

26 May 2011
Issue: 7467 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Brown and others v Innovatorone plc (in liquidation) and others [2010] EWHC 2281 (Comm), [2011] All ER (D) 137 (May)

It was for the national court to assess whether there was a connection between the different claims brought before it, that was to say a risk of irreconcilable judgments if those claims were determined separately and in that regard to take account of all necessary factors in the case file which might, if appropriate, yet without its being necessary for the assessment, take into consideration the legal basis of the actions brought before that court. A claimant had to show that there was a serious issue to be tried as between themselves and the anchor defendants.

That was because, if the court concluded that the claim against the co-defendant was not seriously arguable, then it was unlikely to be expedient to determine it together with the claim against the anchor defendant since there was no sufficiently arguable claim to found the requisite connection, and there was unlikely to be any risk of irreconcilable judgments since, even if

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Private client specialist joins as partner in Taunton office

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

Finance and restructuring offering strengthened by partner hire in London

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll