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

Article 30 of the Recast Brussels Regulation does not confer a discretion to stay proceedings or decline jurisdiction merely because related proceedings are pending in the same Member State. The actions must have a real prospect of being heard and determined together. That requires, at a minimum, trial by the same court and judge or panel, with judgments given at the same time. Proceedings before separate courts or divisions, producing judgments at different times, do not satisfy that requirement. If that condition is absent, the actions are not related for Article 30 and neither discretion arises.

The claimants brought claims in England and Wales for libel and malicious falsehood. They relied solely on internet republications in England and Wales of statements and a press release made in Poland concerning alleged benzene emissions from an industrial plant in Szczecin.

Meanwhile, the first defendant had brought proceedings in Poland against the first claimant alleging nuisance arising from emissions from the plant. Nicol J held that the English and Polish actions were related under Article 30 of the Recast Brussels Regulation and declined jurisdiction under Article 30(2).

The claimants appealed. The central issue was whether the English defamation and malicious-falsehood claims and the Polish nuisance claim could properly be treated as actions to be heard and determined together for Article 30(3).

1. Appeal allowed. Bean LJ, with whom Baker and Lewison LJJ agreed on the dispositive issue, held that Nicol J had no discretion under Article 30 either to decline jurisdiction or to stay the English proceedings.
2. Article 30(3) exhaustively defines related actions for the purposes of both discretions. The phrase “heard and determined together” does not mean merely in the same Member State. It requires at least that the actions be tried in the same court by the same judge or panel, with judgment given in both at the same time. The construction was supported by Research in Motion UK Ltd v Visto Corporation [2008] 2 All ER Comm 560 and by the approach in JSC Commercial Bank Privatbank v Kolomoisky and Others [2019] EWCA Civ 1708.
3. On the expert evidence, a Polish libel claim would be brought in the civil division of the general court, whereas the existing emissions claim was in the commercial division. Consolidation was very unlikely and there was no real prospect of the two claims being tried together by the same judge. They were therefore not related actions within Article 30(3). The threshold for either a stay under Article 30(1) or declining jurisdiction under Article 30(2) was not met.
4. Bean LJ expressed a non-dispositive view that, if a genuine prospect of joint determination had existed, the broad approach to conflicting judgments in The Tatry [1999] QB 515 and Sarrio SA v Kuwait Investment Authority [1999] 1 AC 32 would favour treating the pollution issue as creating a risk of irreconcilable judgments. Baker and Lewison LJJ reserved their opinions on reconciling that approach with Shevill v Presse Alliance SA [1995] 2 AC 18.
5. The order declining jurisdiction was set aside. Bean LJ added, obiter, that the progress and findings of the Polish nuisance proceedings could remain relevant to English case management, damages, and serious-harm issues, without creating issue estoppel.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the claimants’ appeal and set aside the order declining jurisdiction: [2019] EWCA Civ 1932.
• High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division: Nicol J held the English defamation and malicious-falsehood proceedings related to the Polish nuisance proceedings and declined jurisdiction under Article 30(2) of the Recast Brussels Regulation. The citation is not stated in the judgment.