DEUTSCHE BANK AG V SEBASTIAN HOLDINGS INC

[2009] EWHC 3069 (Comm), Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court, Mr Justice Burton, 1 December 2009

Conflict of laws - Stay of proceedings - Actions between the parties in both New York and England - English claims governed by exclusive jurisdiction clauses - Whether proceedings could be stayed on the basis of forum non conveniens

Proceedings between the parties were in existence in both England and New York. The English proceedings related to matters which fell within English exclusive jurisdiction clauses. The question was whether the English proceedings should be stayed on the ground of forum non conveniens. Burton J refused a stay. (1) At common law a stay was possible even where there was an exclusive jurisdiction clause, although exceptional circumstances were required. The only argument put forward was that it was convenient for all disputes to be resolved in a single forum, but Burton J held that it was not obvious that New York was the most appropriate forum and in any event there were no exceptional circumstances which required the exclusive jurisdiction clause to be disregarded. (2) Burton J refused to come to a conclusion on the question whether the decision of the European Court of Justice in Owusu v Jackson [2005] ECR I-1383 required the English court to refuse a stay if jurisdiction had been conferred by an exclusive jurisdiction clause. (3) The argument that there could be a stay on case management grounds - based on Reichhold Norway ASA v Goldman Sachs International [2000] 1 WLR 173, National Westminster Bank v Utrecht-America Finance Co [2001] 3 AER 733 CA and CNA Insurance Co Ltd v Office Depot International (UK) Ltd [2007] Lloyd's Rep IR 89 was not pressed.