Conflict of laws—allocation of jurisdiction—contracts of employment—intellectual property proceedings

In essence, this was a dispute arising from an alleged theft of intellectual property. The claimants, A, a Swedish company, and W, a Polish company, made and sold marine separators.2 SSI, an English company, was, inter alia, involved in buying and marketing A’s separators. In 2005, SSI’s director P, an English national, and J, a Polish national formerly employed by W, set up SSIP in Poland. In 2008, A and W brought proceedings in England against SSI and P, alleging that they had misappropriated A’s designs, rebranded them as theirs and sold them in competition with A. Shortly thereafter, the claimants sought to join J and SSIP to their action against SSI and P, relying on the court’s jurisdiction under the Brussels I Regulation, Art.6(1). The claimants argued that J had been involved in the theft of the designs and that SSIP was profiteering in Poland from the initial misuse of A’s intellectual property. In response, J claimed that, by means of the Brussels I Regulation, Section 5, the courts of Poland had exclusive jurisdiction over him. There was little doubt that, following the ECJ’s ruling in Glaxosmithkline v Rouard,3 where a court’s jurisdiction derived from provisions under the Brussels I Regulation, Arts 18 and 20, a court could not assume jurisdiction over the dispute based on Art.5(3) and Art.6(1). In short, therefore, the basic question for the English court’s consideration was whether the allegations of breach of copyright and misuse of confidential information against J were “matters relating to [his] individual contract of employment”, for the purposes of the Brussels I Regulation, Art.18(1).