Ever since it was handed down, the decision of the Court of Appeal in Re Harrods (Buenos Aires) Ltd 1 has had the appearance of being on borrowed time. In it, the Court of Appeal held that proceedings commenced in the English courts pursuant to Art 2 of the Brussels Convention2 might be stayed, on the grounds of forum non conveniens , in favour of proceedings in the courts of a non-Contracting State. A quick, but never painless, death might have ensued if a reference on this point to the European Court of Justice in Re Harrods itself3 had made it that far, but the case was settled. When, subsequently, an opportunity presented itself to the House of Lords to make a further reference it was declined since, having decided no stay would be awarded in any event, it was unnecessary to refer the question of whether the English courts continued to enjoy the power to so order.4 The bell really began to toll when a claim form was served out of the Sheffield District Registry of the High Court on 6 October 2000 in Owusu v. Jackson .