header-logo header-logo

17 July 2009
Issue: 7378 / Categories: Case law , Law reports
printer mail-detail

Conflict of laws—Jurisdiction—Challenge to jurisdiction

JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA and another v Berliner Verkehersbetriebe (BVG) Anstalt Des Offentlichen Rechts, [2009] EWHC 1627 (Comm), [2009] All ER (D) 88 (Jul)

Queen’s Bench Division, Commercial Court, Teare J, 9 July 2009

When considering jurisdiction under Art 22 of Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 (the Brussels Regulation), the court is involved in an exercise of overall classification and the litigation has to be viewed overall and an overall judgment has to be formed whilst taking into account the underlying rationale of Art 22(2).

Laurence Rabinowitz QC and Richard Handyside QC (instructed by Linklaters LLP) for the claimants. Tim Lord QC, Simon Salzedo and Sarah Abram (instructed by Addleshaw Goddard LLP) for the defendant.

The first claimant, JPM, a global provider of banking and financial services, entered into an independent collateral enhancement transaction (the transaction) dated 19 July 2007 with the defendant, a public law institution established under German law. The transaction was intended to provide protection to the defendant against the risks inherent in cross-border leasing arrangements into which it had entered.

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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll