Alfa Laval Tumba AB & Ors v Separator Spares International Ltd & Ors

Claims relate to an individual contract of employment for jurisdictional purposes where there is a material nexus between the claims and that contract. The court must examine the substance of the matter, rather than whether the employer has pleaded a contractual cause of action. A claim framed in tort may therefore fall within the employment-jurisdiction provisions where the alleged conduct would breach the employee’s contractual duties.

Jurisdiction over multiple defendants does not require every claim to have the same legal basis. A sufficiently close factual connection may suffice. Joinder remains inappropriate, however, where separate proceedings will still create the risk of irreconcilable judgments which joinder is intended to avoid.

The claimants alleged that a former employee and others had covertly obtained, transmitted and used design drawings and confidential business information to manufacture and sell competing marine-separator spare parts. Their English claims alleged breach of copyright and misuse of confidential information. A Polish-law claim alleged unfair competition.

Briggs J, in [2012] EWHC 1155 (Ch), reported at [2012] FSR 34, added the Polish company and former employee as defendants. He held that the employment-jurisdiction provisions did not apply because the employee’s status was not legally relevant to the pleaded claims. The central questions were whether those claims nevertheless related to the former employee’s contract of employment under Article 18.1 of Council Regulation No 44/2001, and whether the Polish company could be joined under Article 6.1.

1. The appeal was allowed unanimously. The orders joining the Polish company and former employee as defendants were set aside.

2. The expression “matters relating to individual contracts of employment” in Article 18.1 of Council Regulation No 44/2001 imposes a broad inquiry into whether the claims relate to the employment contract. The “legal relevance” test adopted in Swithenbank Foods Ltd v Bowers [2002] 2 All ER (Comm) 974 was rejected. It made jurisdiction depend artificially upon how the employer pleaded its cause of action. The same objection applied to a test asking whether the defendant was sued in the capacity of an employee.

3. A useful indication, though not a separate comprehensive test, is whether the alleged acts would constitute breaches of the employee’s contract. The alleged removal and misuse of drawings and confidential information breached express contractual rules and the implied obligation of fidelity. The claims therefore related materially to the employment contract even though they were framed as copyright and confidential-information claims. Article 20.1 required the former employee to be sued in Poland, where he was domiciled. Jurisdiction could not instead be founded upon Article 6.1.

4. Davis LJ emphasised that the Regulation had an autonomous meaning. The court must consider the substance of the matter and must not interpret Article 18.1 through the pleading rules of a particular member state. The words “relating to” require a material nexus, but are broad and unqualified. The Chancellor agreed with Longmore LJ’s reasons and Davis LJ’s observations.

5. Article 6.1 does not require claims against different defendants to share the same legal basis. A sufficiently close factual connection and a corresponding risk of irreconcilable judgments may suffice, as explained in Painer v Standard Verlags GmbH & ors C-145/10. Nevertheless, joining the Polish company to a dormant English claim was not expedient. Proceedings against the former employee had to occur in Poland, so joinder could not remove the risk of irreconcilable judgments. The limitation issue was consequently academic.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2012] EWCA Civ 1569, unanimously allowed the appeal and set aside the order joining the Polish company and former employee as defendants.

2. High Court, Chancery Division: Briggs J, in [2012] EWHC 1155 (Ch), reported at [2012] FSR 34, added both appellants as defendants. He held that Article 20.1 of Council Regulation No 44/2001 did not prevent their joinder.