Jump to Content Jump to Main Navigation

Part IV Procedural and Systemic Issues, 21 Concurrent Proceedings

From: Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments in Europe: The Brussels I Regulation, the Lugano Convention, and the Hague Choice of Court Convention

Trevor C Hartley

From: Oxford Legal Research Library (http://olrl.ouplaw.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved.date: 05 December 2020

Concurrent claims — Anti-suit injunctions — Stay of court proceedings

This chapter examines the way Brussels 2012 and Lugano 2007 deal with the situation in which the same claim is litigated before two courts in different countries. Since parallel proceedings are undesirable, it is generally accepted that some mechanism should be used to avoid them. The mechanism adopted by both Brussels and Lugano — Hague does not deal with the matter — is the doctrine of <i>lis pendens</i>. Under this, the court first seised hears the case and all other courts must give it up. It has the merit of being simple and objective, but it makes no attempt to ascertain which court would be more appropriate to hear the case. This latter question introduces an element of subjectivity, which can lead to uncertainty and lengthy litigation as to where litigation will take place. The chapter first discusses <i>lis pendens</i> (and similar procedures in the case of related actions). It then goes on to consider the effect of Brussels and Lugano on the common-law remedies of <i>forum non conveniens</i> and antisuit injunctions.

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Please, subscribe or login to access all content.