header-logo header-logo

14 August 2015
Issue: 7665 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Conflict of laws

Petter v EMC Europe Ltd and another [2015] EWCA Civ 828, [2015] All ER (D) 313 (Jul)

The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that English court had jurisdiction pursuant to s 5 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 to determine a dispute arising out of the claimant’s employment with an English company whose parent company was a Massachusetts company, in circumstances where the claimant’s contract of employment contained an express choice of Massachusetts law and an exclusive jurisdiction agreement in favour of the courts of Massachusetts. The court allowed the claimant’s appeal against an order dismissing his application for an anti-suit injunction on the basis that it was bound by the decision in Samengo-Turner v J & H Marsh & McLennan (Services) Ltd [2007] 2 All ER (Comm) 813.

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

Switalskis—five appointments

Switalskis—five appointments

Firm expands national abuse compensation team

Mathys & Squire—nine promotions

Mathys & Squire—nine promotions

IP firm announces new partners and senior promotions across UK offices

Carey Olsen—five promotions

Carey Olsen—five promotions

Carey Olsen promotes five lawyers to the partnership

NEWS
A High Court ruling has sent a jolt through the legal profession after a newly qualified solicitor used an internal AI tool to produce court correspondence containing a fabricated legal citation
A significant data privacy ruling has clarified what counts as valid consent under UK data protection law
Executors may be overlooking billions of pounds in estate assets hidden in forgotten investments and misplaced share certificates
Britain’s booming non-surgical cosmetics market is operating in what some critics describe as a regulatory ‘Wild West’
Family contact disputes are becoming an increasingly prominent feature of Court of Protection litigation
back-to-top-scroll