Euroeco Fuels (Poland) Ltd & Ors v Szczecin And Swinoujscie Seaports Authority SA & Ors

A claimant relying on Article 7(2) of the Recast Brussels Regulation must establish a good arguable case that the harmful event occurred, or may occur, in the jurisdiction. The court may examine matters overlapping with the merits, but it must not conduct a trial.

Where proceedings in another Member State are sufficiently connected to create a risk of irreconcilable judgments, Article 30 may permit a stay or declining jurisdiction. The court must apply a broad, common-sense assessment. Relevant considerations include the extent of relatedness, the stage reached in each proceeding and the proximity of each court to the subject matter.

The claimants brought proceedings in England for libel and malicious falsehood arising from statements made and first published in Poland concerning emissions from an industrial plant there. They relied on internet and broadcast republications accessible in England and Wales, limiting their claims to harm suffered within that jurisdiction.

The defendants, domiciled in Poland, challenged jurisdiction under the Recast Brussels Regulation and relied on related nuisance proceedings already pending in Poland. The central issues were whether the claimants had shown a good arguable case that a harmful event occurred in England and Wales, and whether the English proceedings should be stayed or jurisdiction declined under Article 30.

1. Jurisdiction under Article 7(2). The claimants bore the burden of showing jurisdiction. The applicable standard was a good arguable case. This required the court to weigh competing arguments on the written evidence, without deciding the merits as at trial. The claimants satisfied that standard for both libel and malicious falsehood.
2. The claimants had a good arguable case that each had suffered serious harm. The corporate claimants also had a good arguable case of serious financial harm under Defamation Act 2013, s 1(2). Serious financial loss was not confined to special loss and could be inferred. Difficulties in raising equity, increased borrowing costs, adverse supplier terms and management time were capable of constituting relevant evidence. The claims were confined to harm suffered in England and Wales under the mosaic alternative.
3. Related proceedings. The Polish nuisance proceedings and the English proceedings were related for Article 30 purposes. The proceedings need not involve identical parties. The truth or falsity of allegations concerning benzene emissions was likely to arise in England and had already featured in the Polish evidence. Applying the broad common-sense approach required by Sarrio SA v Kuwait Investment Authority [1999] 1 AC 32, there was a risk of irreconcilable judgments.
4. Article 30(2) permitted the court to decline jurisdiction because the Polish proceedings were pending at first instance, the Polish court had jurisdiction over the relevant actions, and Polish law permitted consolidation. The practical likelihood of consolidation was relevant to discretion but was not a condition of the power.
5. In exercising its discretion, the court considered the relatedness and risk of conflict, the advanced stage of the Polish proceedings, and the greater proximity of the Polish courts to the Polish plant, Polish environmental issues, Polish parties and Polish-language publications. The mosaic alternative also carried disadvantages because relief would be limited geographically.
6. Article 30(1) provided an alternative power to stay. A stay was not required, and the court declined to adopt it in light of the claimants’ position and the circumstances. The court therefore declined jurisdiction under Article 30(2).