WMS GAMING INC V B PLUS GIOCOLEGALE LTD

[2011] EWHC 2620 (Comm), Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court, Mr Justice Simon, 13 October 2011

Conflict of laws - Stay of proceedings - Whether proceedings in the English and Italian courts were the same - Whether the proceedings were related - Brussels Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, articles 27 and 28

Article 27 of the Brussels Regulation, which requires a court to stay its proceedings if another EU court is first seised of those proceedings, does not envisage a court dividing the action into issues and being required to stay only those issues which are before the foreign court. However the point did not arise on the facts, because the proceedings in the English and Italian courts were different and the objectives of the parties in each set of proceedings were different. Further, the parties were different: two companies within the same group were not necessarily to be treated as the same economic entity, distinguishing Berkeley Administration Inc v McClelland [1995] ILPr 201. Further, the two actions were not related, so that the court would not in its discretion stay the English proceedings under article 28: there was no risk of conflicting judgments.