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

At the interlocutory stage, applicable law need not be finally determined where the claimant shows a sufficiently arguable or prima facie case that the pleaded national law applies. The Judgments Regulation employment jurisdiction rules apply only where the employment contract is legally relevant to the claim. Employee status alone does not prevent jurisdiction based on a common design to misuse intellectual property.

Article 6.1 jurisdiction may be used where claims against multiple defendants have a sufficiently close factual connection and separate proceedings create a real risk of irreconcilable judgments. A new claim which may be statute-barred cannot ordinarily be added retrospectively to existing proceedings. It should instead be brought separately and managed with the existing claim where appropriate.

The claimants sought permission to add two Polish defendants and two additional claimants to existing intellectual property proceedings, and to amend the Particulars of Claim. The proposed claims concerned copyright infringement, misuse of confidential information and alleged unfair competition under Articles 11 and 23 of the Polish Act on Combating Unfair Competition of 1993.

The Polish defendants challenged applicable law, jurisdiction and limitation. They argued that the employment jurisdiction provisions applied to one defendant, that Article 6.1 did not permit English jurisdiction, and that the Polish claim was statute-barred. The central issues were whether the amendments and joinder should be permitted, and whether the Polish-law claim could be pursued in the existing proceedings.

1. Applicable law. At the amendment and joinder stage, the court should not finally determine fact-sensitive applicable-law questions. The claimant must instead show a sufficiently arguable or prima facie case for application of the relevant national law. The claimants met that threshold in contending that the alleged participants formed a single common design centred partly in England.
2. Employment jurisdiction. Section 5 of the Judgments Regulation was confined to cases in which the employment contract was legally relevant to the claim. The former employee’s status did not provide the factual opportunity to obtain the drawings and was legally irrelevant to the pleaded common-design claims. Articles 18 and 20 therefore did not prevent English jurisdiction.
3. Article 6.1. The claims had a sufficiently close factual connection because they concerned participation in the same alleged common design. The risk of irreconcilable judgments remained palpable while related claims were pursued in different countries. The absence of an active defence, or a period of inactivity against an existing defendant, did not materially alter that assessment. The connection was sufficient in relation to both Polish respondents.
4. The alternative Article 5.3 argument required no separate determination because Article 6.1 jurisdiction was sufficiently established.
5. Limitation. The Polish defendants had an arguable limitation defence under the Polish legislation. By contrast, deliberate concealment postponed the English limitation period under section 32(1)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980. Section 35 meant that adding the Polish claim to the existing proceedings could retrospectively date it to 2008, prejudicing that defence. The claim under the Polish Act therefore had to be brought separately, if pursued in England, with the proceedings capable of being tried together or before the same judge.
6. The remaining joinder and amendments were permitted. The application was refused only so far as it sought to introduce the Polish-law claim into the existing proceedings.