Civil litigation

The issue arose out of concurrent proceedings before the Swiss and English courts. The question was whether or not, in the light of the Swiss proceedings, the English court had to decline jurisdiction over the English proceedings and order a stay.

HELD The answer depended on which court had first been seised of proceedings within the meaning of Art 21 of the Lugano Convention. It is arguable that the court could simply have ordered, under CPR r 3.10(b), that the defendants were to be regarded as having been properly served.

However, a judge is entitled (under CPR r 6.9) to dispense with service of a claim form; this power is to be exercised sparingly and only in the most exceptional circumstances where it would have the effect of altering the priority of seisin.