header-logo header-logo

25 February 2010
Issue: 7406 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Conflict of laws

Byers and others v Yacht Bull Corporation and another[2010] EWHC 133 (Ch), [2010] All ER (D) 217 (Feb)

The exception regarding “proceedings relating to the winding-up of insolvent companies” contained in Art 1(2)(b) of Council Regulation 44/2001 (the Brussels Regulation) did not apply so as to exclude the application of the Regulation as a whole.

If decisions relating to bankruptcy and winding-up were to be excluded from the scope of the Regulation, it was necessary that they had to derive directly from the bankruptcy or winding-up and be closely connected with the proceedings for “the liquidation des biens” or the “reglement judiciaire”.

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

Harneys—Maggie Kwok & George Weston

Harneys—Maggie Kwok & George Weston

Harneys senior leadership appointments

Freeths—Keith Browne & Jim Jordan

Freeths—Keith Browne & Jim Jordan

Freeths strengthens London Construction and Engineering practice with two strategic senior hires

Anthony Collins—Laura Moss

Anthony Collins—Laura Moss

Anthony Collins announces strategic hire to deepen skills base in the social business sector

NEWS
Existing defamation law can respond to AI ‘hallucinations’, but allocating responsibility will prove harder where outputs reach users without human intervention
The High Court has upheld a rare successful serious-irregularity challenge after an arbitrator relied on an implied term neither party had advanced
Thirty years after The Future of Law shook a profession still using fax machines, its central forecast looks increasingly less like prophecy and more like description
More than 100 teams from the legal and financial services sectors competed in five sports at the 51st Law Society RFC Festival of Sport earlier this month
Part-time status need only be an effective cause of less favourable treatment, rather than the sole cause, the Supreme Court has held in Augustine v Data Cars
back-to-top-scroll