Miles Platt Ltd. v Townroe Ltd. & Anor

Article 21 of the 1968 Brussels Convention requires a stay only where proceedings in different Contracting States involve the same cause of action and the same parties. A preliminary foreign judicial expertise process, which preserves evidence and cannot finally determine liability, is not substantive litigation. Where characterised as a provisional or protective measure under Article 24, it cannot found an Article 21 stay.

Article 22 requires a threshold inquiry into whether first-instance actions are sufficiently closely connected that it is expedient to determine them together to avoid irreconcilable judgments. The court must assess the likely reality of the proceedings, rather than theoretical overlaps. The discretionary stay stage arises only if that threshold is met.

Sagem’s television sets caught fire, allegedly because defective electro-plated pins had been incorporated into coils supplied through Lecerf SARL and manufactured by Miles Platt Ltd. Sagem began a preliminary judicial expertise process in France, later involving Miles Platt and Townroe, and also brought substantive French proceedings against Lecerf and Miles Platt.

Miles Platt Ltd. v Townroe Ltd. & Anor concerned English proceedings by Miles Platt against Townroe concerning defective electro-plating, with related contractual relief involving Lecerf. The Master stayed the English proceedings under Article 21. His Honour Judge Graham Jones QC, sitting as a High Court judge, allowed Miles Platt’s appeal and removed the stay. The central issues were whether the French expertise process engaged Article 21 and whether the French substantive proceedings were related to the English proceedings under Article 22.

Mrs Justice Black gave the judgment of the court. Lord Justice Laws and Lord Justice Tuckey agreed. The appeal was dismissed, with costs agreed at £5,300.

1. Article 21. Article 21 is mandatory where proceedings involving the same cause of action and the same parties are pending in different Contracting States. It was logical to consider Article 21 before the discretionary provision in Article 22. The French judicial expertise process could not impose a final solution on the parties. If the dispute were not settled after the expert’s report, a separate substantive action would still be required, in which the court would independently decide the merits.
2. The English court decides whether a foreign process falls within Article 21, but may take account of the foreign court’s characterisation of its own procedure. The Versailles Court of Appeal had treated the expertise process as an interim investigative measure, ordered before substantive litigation to preserve evidence, and as a protective or provisional measure within Article 24. The French courts were therefore never seised of a substantive dispute between Miles Platt and Townroe. The process could not support an Article 21 stay.
3. Article 22. The inquiry has two stages. First, the court asks whether related first-instance actions are pending in different Contracting States. Actions are related only where they are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments. The court must consider the likely reality of the proceedings, not merely theoretical issues or technical overlaps.
4. On the facts, the French proceedings were likely to determine whether the pins supplied to Sagem were defective and the resulting loss. The English proceedings principally concerned whether Townroe handled the pins, their condition when they left Townroe, what happened afterwards, and the contractual allocation of responsibility. The parties shared an interest in limiting Sagem’s liability, but their interests diverged on internal attribution of blame. The actions were not sufficiently closely connected, so the discretionary stage under Article 22 did not arise.
5. The lower judge’s additional consideration of discretionary factors did not invalidate the conclusion. Those factors were not an exercise in deciding the convenient forum. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): [2003] EWCA Civ 145. Townroe’s appeal against the removal of the stay was dismissed with agreed costs of £5,300.
• High Court: His Honour Judge Graham Jones QC, sitting as a High Court judge, allowed Miles Platt’s appeal from the Master on 3 July 2002 and removed the stay.
• Master: imposed a stay of the English proceedings under Article 21 of the 1968 Brussels Convention.