Divorce Proceedings, Forum Conveniens and Stays: England still open for business in the wider world

In 2005, in the context of a commercial law dispute under the Brussels Convention (the predecessor to the Brussels I Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001)), the European Court of Justice held that domestic courts in an EUmember state have no power to stay their proceedings on the basis th...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inThe Journal of social welfare & family law Vol. 36; no. 1; pp. 76 - 78
Main Authors Amos, Tim, Brooks, Duncan
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Abingdon Routledge 02.01.2014
Taylor & Francis Ltd
Subjects
Brussels I Recast
Brussels IIR Regulation
CJEU reference
Court hearings & proceedings
discretionary stay
Divorce
Divorce proceedings
forum conveniens
jurisdiction
Justice
Regulation
Europe
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:In 2005, in the context of a commercial law dispute under the Brussels Convention (the predecessor to the Brussels I Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001)), the European Court of Justice held that domestic courts in an EUmember state have no power to stay their proceedings on the basis that another forum outside of the EU would be the more appropriate forumfor the dispute: Case C-281/02 Owusu v. Jackson [2005]QB801. In other words, while the court might in certain circumstances stay proceedings because a court elsewhere within the Union was better placed (or required) to deal with it, there was no power to stay domestic proceedings if the reason for doing so was to move the dispute outside the EU entirely.
ISSN:0964-9069
1469-9621
DOI:10.1080/09649069.2014.886879