Jamieson v Wurttembergische Versicherung Ag & Anor

Where a foreign court gives a clear and unequivocal answer to a request under Article 29(2) of the Brussels Regulation (Recast), the requesting court must act on that answer. It must not examine or debate the foreign court’s underlying reasoning, since the mechanism requires a question and an answer and is governed by comity. Further clarification is appropriate only where genuine ambiguity exists. The fact that the foreign proceedings continue does not necessarily contradict the stated date of seisin if the foreign court has subsequently addressed a different jurisdictional issue.

The claimant brought proceedings in England against an insurer and another defendant. The proceedings had been stayed while the court sought information from the Munich Regional Court under Article 29(2) of the Brussels Regulation (Recast) concerning the date on which the German court was deemed seised.

The Munich court replied that it was seised on 13 June 2018. That date was later than commencement of the English proceedings. The defendants argued that the German court had misapplied Article 32(1)(a), that its continuing conduct showed that it remained seised, and that the English court should seek clarification or adjourn the matter.

1. The stay was lifted and the defendants’ jurisdiction applications were dismissed. The Munich Regional Court’s response clearly and unequivocally stated that it was deemed seised on 13 June 2018. The English court was therefore first seised.
2. It was impermissible for the court to question or debate the reasoning underlying that answer. The court did not sit as an appellate court over the German judge. The Article 29(2) mechanism provides for a question and an answer, not a dialogue. Comity, practicality and the words “without delay” supported that approach.
3. Further clarification was unnecessary. The defendants sought a different answer rather than clarification of an ambiguous one. Even a complete absence of reasoning would not have entitled the English court to challenge the answer.
4. The fact that the German proceedings continued did not undermine the stated date of seisin. The Munich Higher Regional Court had taken a different approach based on jurisdiction, including the alleged inadmissibility of a negative declaration in light of Articles 11(1)(b) and 13(2) and the protection of the weaker party under Recital 18. That change of focus did not alter the finding as to seisin.
5. Further adjournment was refused. The German hearing was expected to concern jurisdiction rather than seisin, and the English court’s order was likely to render it redundant. Permission to appeal and a stay pending an appeal application were refused.

The judgment refers to an earlier judgment in the same proceedings, [2021] EWHC 178 (QB), which set out the background and led to the request to the Munich Regional Court. The present court lifted the stay and dismissed the defendants’ applications to decline jurisdiction. Permission to appeal and a stay pending an application for permission were refused.