Catalyst Investment Group Ltd v Lewinsohn and others; Catalyst Investment Group Ltd and another v Lewinsohn and another; ARM Asset-Backed Securities SA v Lewinsohn and another [2009] EWHC 1964 (Ch); [2009] All ER (D) 34 (Aug)
The court had no power to decline jurisdiction or to grant a stay on forum conveniens grounds in favour of the courts of a non-EU country in respect of proceedings of which the court was properly seised under Art 2 of the Brussels Regulation.
The aim of the Brussels Regulation was to lay down common rules on jurisdiction to guarantee certainty as to the allocation of jurisdiction amongst the various national courts before which proceedings might be brought. Application of the forum non conveniens doctrine, which would allow the court seised a wide discretion as regards the question of whether a foreign court would be a more appropriate forum for the trial of an action, was liable to undermine the predictability of the rules of jurisdiction laid down by the Regulation.
The principles of legal certainty and uniform application of the rules of jurisdiction were decisive and outweighed any negative consequences which would ensue from the result of the English court being required to accept jurisdiction. Furthermore, there was no established precedent that would allow the court to decline jurisdiction where there was a lis alibi pendens in a non-regulation country.
